POLICE COURT.-This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XVI, Issue 5032, 27 February 1885, Page 2

POLICE COURT.-This Day.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.) FBAUDtTLENT BANKRUPTCY. James Clarke was charged, by the Official Assignee with failing to deliver to the Assignee certain drapery, grocery, &c, upon filing his petition in bankruptcy, with intent to defraud his creditors. ; Mr Hudson Williamson, of Auckland, appeared to prosecute, and Mr Miller for tbe defence.

Mr Williamson opened the case, detailed the proceedings after suspicion had been aroused, and described the action taken, how a warrant was obtained and a search made of the defendant's premises, where a large quantify of drapery and grocery was discoTered, and it was alleged the properly belonged to the estate;

J. Gr. Jerram deposed that defendant was a storekeeper, carrying on business in Te Aroha. He was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 24th November last. Witness was~appointed by Mr Lawson, Official Assignee.,in Auckland, to visit Clarke; did so on the 28th November, saw tbe defendant nt his houso next morning, and he went with witness to the store ; witness commenced to take stock. Defendant was only thereon the first day. After taking stock examined his books; required defendant's assistance in this matter, and obtlined it. Went to defend: ! ant's dwelling about the 6th of December. Defendaut did .not accompany witness, although the lattor told Clarko he was going to his house. Examined every room that Mrs Clarko pointed out. Could not gay whether he was shown every room or not, thought he saw, &7e rooms. Saw nothing in the way of store goods in the house. There was only furniture there, and that was about tbe value of £25, so did not take possession of it. Did not visit the house again until he went with the deteotive. If he had seen the goods now in Court when he first visited (he house hs would have noticed them, particularly the box; of candles, boots and patent medicines. After witness took possession of the store Clark had no opportunity of removing good from it. Asked defendant to come down to the store to give him some information regarding some horses and cattle and he promised and failed to keep the appointment: While in the store sold goods of the stock, but never sold any of those in Court. Early this month received information leading him to believe goods were concealed in the house, telegraphed to the Assignee' with the result that Detective Doolan arrived at Te Aroha with a search warrant. Went with Sergeant Emerson and Detective Doolan to Clarke's bouse and saw Mrs Clarke. The detec tive read the warrant and proceeded to search the house. In a bedroom found some dress material in a box, had ex* amined that room on his first visit, but did not notice the box there. A box of patent medicines was found in the wardrobe ; they were : pain killer, Holloway's ointment and pills, and Cockle's pills and others ; also in the bedroom were found i the boots, trunk, baskets, feathers, ribbons, and stockings. All the goods were new, as if jast taken from the shelves of a store. While they were searching, Clark returned to the house, and asked what' it was about, and said he knew nothing about it. He asked that the warrant might be read, and was told that this had already been done. Mrs Clarke then said, "It is no use, I took them out of the store, thinking I was perfectly justified in doing so." There is a narrow passage between the two places. The goods were then taken away ; valued the goods taken at £27 10s 7d.

To Mr Miller: The bailiff (A. Menzies) was in possession at Te Aroha when wit" ness got there ; ho had been put in by the sherifl'. He gavo up possession wheu witness produced his authority from the Assignee. Heard that Clarke had made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, but it* was not completed because two creditors refused to sign. On going through the house to ascertain what was in it, .did not take an inventory of what was there. Did not examine the contents of the chest of drawers or boxes in each room. The house belongs to the estate. .Did not lake possession of Clarke's home; ho it still io posiesiion of it. When going through

(Jiftt'ke's house iho first tune, had uo sus-

pici-m of fi'-.dins; new store Roods there, no did not. search the house. Clarke told wit*

n?ss before the detectire went v? that he had delivered up everything, and had

nothing to keep his children but potatoes grqvnnjf. Did not look into the wardrobe; If the medicines and boots were in the

wardrobe, it was possible witness could not have seen them. Could not swear that the

box in which the dress pieces were found was not in the room when he went through it, but it was not pointed out to him. . When Mrs Clarke . admitted l*kix»«..th«, goods, she said she bad done so for the benefit of her children. To Mr Williamson : Believe that Clarke had time from when-1 toleh him-"I wonld* visit his house to the time .1 did so. to

conceal the goods found.' "'': -'^-:^ '- Detective Doolan deposed to receiviog the "Search warrant and executing the) search of Clarke's premises on the'9th instrin the comply of Sergeant Emerson and Mr Jerram. Head, the warrant to lira Clark who said she had no objection to th» T search taking pUco. Found the greater! part of tho property produced its. the bedroom. The candles and, oilcloth were

found in another part of the bouse. The patent'medicines and Barry's Trieopheroul _-- were found in the wardrobe,, behind, some clothes. Mr* Clark' was present' all the time, Mr Clark only for the last half boar.

Mrs. Clark remarked that she had taken'

the goods out of the store; Clark, to whom # he believed thei- remark wainmade, igraiedk;; surprised^ especially when he. saw^the boots, and said "I kaow ndttiibK 3 kbont this." Clark • asked " witness for hit authority, and he read 'ithc warrant to; him

To Mr Miller• With theexeeption of the medicine aod blacking and brushes, the things were not in places where, one would not expect to find them., Mr* Clark was continually trying,to explain where she got tbe things, frequently stating that she had taken the things out of the ijtore. This closed the ease tor the prosecution. ~ Mr Miller said he did not propose to offer any evidence, hut contended that no case had been made out on which a jury would convict. He also contended that tbe' Bench had not jurisdiction in the ~ case, as all proceedings in connection with a bankruptcy should be taken in. the Court specially appointed to -, deal with all matters of bankruptcy. He ' likewise contended that Mr Clark, having before made an.assignment of his pro* p^rty, could nol possibly give up.goodi which were really .not in his possession at all, but Belonged to the sheriff. If rieeei*'sary, be would ask the Court for an adjournment to enable him to prore the- - assignment. He quoted from authorities in support of the contention. .-The evidence also went to show that Mr Clark did not know of tbe goods being in the places in which they were found, but that \ « they were taken by, his wife, r and that there had been no attempt at concealment. ' - -- ' ■"'"' .' ' Mr 'Williamson replied at length. His Worship had no' doubt of the power of the Court to deal with the ease; the power conferred on the Bankruptcy Court did not by any means take away the power of the justices. With regard to the point raised re the assignment, the evidence proved beyond a deubt that the trustee under the assignment bad handed over all the property in the- estate to the trustee in bankruptcy, so that point could not be urged. The gcods which were found by the detective should have been delivered up, which had - not been done. Tha question then arose whether Clarke bad knowledge of the goods being con* cealed in the house, aud.whether he or hit •-- wife was responsible. The Court wbutd adiourn for ten minutes to decide this

The Court then rose.

On resuming, His Worship..said the Bench had decided there was not sufficient evidence on which to send the case to"a Jr* jury. There was not the slightest doubt \ of the goods having been taken, nor that :. Miv Clark had taken them; bat it would be a very dangerous precedent to establish that the husband could not' be convfoted A because he pleaded ignorance of his wife's action, and it was-not-on this point tbat'?: the decision of the Bench was.based. The"" defendant was entitled'to the full consideration of the fact that when Mr Jerram visited the premises for tbe purpose of taking stock (it could not.be *- said that he had done*so]l.he practically told him that the goods could be included intbe £25 allowed for household furniture. In dismissing the case, the Bench did it on this ground. It was, however, clear that Clarke had full knowledge of the goods, being in the house, and that they were taken by his wife. The case, was dismissed simply because defendant waf., T given the full benefit of the doubt as to / whether' the goods had- not been band« 4 back by the Official Assignee. In reply to Mr Williamson, Mr Miller said thY - defendant had no objection to the articles being retained by the Assignee.-' ;-•- ■ . ,>./ The Court then rose. •- , ,v: