SUPREME COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2904, 7 December 1895, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Christchurch, December 4. The Harper case was continued at the Supreme Court this morning, Mr Skerrett, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prosecution, reviewed the evidence at considerable length. According to the terms of the trust, when the money was transmitted to the colony it should have been invested in Government securities or in real estate securities. No amount of talk could convince the jury that there had been good security for the so-called investment of this money. The law, pomraon sense, and honor all required that a trustee should reveal to a co-trustee all his relations in regard to the trust, and any suppression or misrepresentation was fraudulent. The main point the jury had to consider would be the contention on behalf of accused that Miles consented in 1887 to the investment of money in Harper & Co.’s business. As a trustee could not invest trust money in his own business, therefore a co trustee could not do so. It was plain that in 1887 the firm could not have paid the sqm oqt of their own money. As to the falsa accounts which the firm had supplied to clients in England, he said that they showed that from 1882 to 1892 the firm was carrying on a business which wqs a gigantic swindle, kept qllve only by concealing the fact from investors that their money had gone.

Sir Robert Stout, in addressing the jury ou behalf of the defence, sajd that ho had never before hoard a Crown Prosecutor apologising for a prosecution. Quo peculiarity about tbo case on the part of the prosecution was tho introduction of extraneous matter iu order to prejudice the jury against the accused. Another peculiarity was tho Government’s iuac ivity iu prosecuting; nor could any parallel C'so bo found of a Government prosecuting a trustee for a breach of trust without the intervention of some private person. Ho attributed the Government’s action to tho fact that they desired for political purposes to show that they would punish people of a high social position. If, as tho prosecuting counsel contended, a trustee was criminally liable if he did quythiny improper with

his trust, then the mere bringing out of Miles’s mouey|to the colony would make a trustee criminally liable. Sir Robert Stout dealt at some length with the evidence, and in concluding said that the firm of Harper & Co. had been punished sufficiently. They were bankrupt, they had lost their good name, yet that could not satisfy some people’s greed of vengeance. The firm foolishly entered into a banking business, and had lost other people’s money, and were prosecuted. When some banks lost millions of other people’s money the same Government which sought to punish Harper came to their assistance with millions more. He hoped that the jury would give such a verdict as would tell the administrators of justice that it must be pure and unbiassed, and not private vengeance. His Honor, in summing up, said that the jury were not called upon to consider the circumstances under which the prosecution had arisen, nor who was responsible for it. There had been nothing in the conduct of the case by Mr Skerrett to justify the aspersions which had been made. The jury had to decide whether the accused had committed an offence under section 79 of the Larceny Act, 1867. No doubt the accused was co-trustee. They had also to decide whether the receipt of money in the colony was a conversion of it. The jury retired at 12.40 p.m. and returned at 1.10 p.m., when the foreman asked ‘'Are the jury correct in understanding that His Honor ruled that the fact of the accused having been aware that the firm was in difficulties in 1887, aud with that knowledge having placed the money on deposit with his firm, does not constitute a fraudulent conversion if done with the consent of the beneficiaries ?”

His Honor said that was his ruling, subject to review afterwards —that it did not constitute a fraudulent conversion if the money was deposited with the consent of the beneficiaries.

At 5.15 p.m. the jury brought in the following verdict :—“That the jury, under the direction of His Honor on the questions of law, unanimously found accused not guilty.” His Honor reserved the several points which had been raised during the hearing, aud also that of direction.

The Court adjourned till uext day. December 5,

The hearing of the second charge against Leonard Harper was commenced at the Supreme Court this morning. It was stated for the prosecution that Mr Hotbam, of York, England, between 1885 and 1887 had sent £3OOO to the firm of Harper & Co. to be invested. The firm represented the money as invested on mortgage of the Springfield Coal Company. This security was subsequently mortgaged to the Union Bank by the firm to secure an advance of £BOO. The firm had by false accounts misled Mr Hotham as to the investment of the money. Counsel for the defence objected frequently to the admission of letters, the identity of which was not proven. His Honor was not prepared to reject the evidence, but noted the objection. An application by Mr Skerrett to change the sixteen counts of the indictment to unlawful conversion of a memorandum of mortgage was granted. From 4.46 p.m. to 5.40 p.m. the Court was engaged arguing points of law which were raised by Sir Robert Stout, The Court adjourned till next day.