Disputed Decision in a Bankruptcy Case.

Thames Star, Volume XVII, Issue 5172, 14 August 1885, Page 2

Disputed Decision in a Bankruptcy Case.

(Peb Pbkss Association.)

Xmybbcabgili, This day. About two months ago Judge Ward ordered a bankrupt named Daniel Hennery to be prosecuted on a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy. The case came on for hearing in the K.M. Court, but the Magistrate dismissed ifc, holding that any statement made by n bankrupt to an Official Assignee could not be used as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution. On his next visit, Judge Ward" characterised the con* duct of tho Magistrate as peculiar, and said he would have to superintend himself, if such peculiar views were held by Magistrates. Iv connection with the mater, Mr H. McOullough yesterday morning made the following siatement before commencing the business :—" I wish for a few moments to refer'to Hennery's case, heard here on the 26th June, and to the remarks that the District Judge then thought proper to make reflecting on the manner which I had disposed of the charge. It is true that some weeks have elapsed since those remarks were made, during which time I have endeavored to obtain an euquiry into the circumstances of the case, and although I recognise the fact that there may be good and valid reasons why such enquiry should not ,be instituted, I think there is no reason why I should not do myself the justice of saying a few words in reply t© the unwarranted remarks of the District Judge. I have taken pains to verify the reports given by both newspapers of what took place in the District Court on the occasion referred to, and having ascertained that they are very fair and accurate reports, I have no hesitation in quoting them to anyone who read these reports. I thiuk it must appear clear that the District Judge, when he allowed himself to make the offensive remarks in question, was laboring under the impression that the statements made by the debtor, in answer to a qaestion put by or before the Assignee, were admissable in evidence against him, whereas such statements are made inadmissable by the 65th section of the Bankruptcy Act. Ten pages of the depositions are filled with such inadmissable statements and matter resulting front them, and beyond these there only remains this : (1 ) That accused received £100 about the 3rd of August and £7,0 about the 14th ol October last year; that is about three months and six weeks respectively before the 25th of November, at which date he was adjudicated a bankrupt; (2) that he has handed no money to the Assignee. There is not a tittle of evidence either of concealing or not accounting for all that appears in the depositions. He might have disposed of the money in a perfectly legitimate manner ; in my opinion, there was not a prima facie case, and I think that I have very properly discharged him. I do not pretend to have intimate acquaintance with the Bankruptcy law, simply because I have so very little practice, but it ia different with the District Judge-—it is his speciality; he is constantly engaged in it. Nevertheless, on this occasion at least it was not the Resident Magistrate who must have been laboring under some " peculiar view of the subject." If I had made a mistake, as both District Judges and Eesident Magistrates must do occasionally, even then the remarks of the District Judge were quite uncalled for and unjustifiable. Resident Magistrates are in no way under the control and direction of ©istrict Jadges. I am very sorry that my views did not fall in with thoseof the District Judge, but I cannot help it. I did not at the time that the prosecution i had been directed by him, but if it had been otherwise I certainly should not have allowed such considerations to have intervened with the free and unbiassed discharge of my duties. I might have said a great deal on the subject, but this is sufficient for my present purposes."