George Anderson's Bankruptoy.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4740, 7 June 1894, Page 3

George Anderson's Bankruptoy.

The Charge of Fraud, Accused before the Supreme Court. . Verdict of"Hot Guilty," . At the Supreme Court yesterday; before His Honor the' Chief Justice, Gcorgo Anderson was indicted upon tlio clinrgo of ilmviiig, witli intent lo defraud his creditors, unlawfully quitted New Zealand on tho 2nd March,. within live days of the presentation of a petition in bankruptcy, taking with liini ;631, which ought to have bcon divided among his creditors.

The prisoner, who was dofended by Sir• Tanner,■ ■'pleaded not guilty. . James Ashcroft, Official Assignee, gave evidence similar to that given in the lower court. Cross-examined: The estate showed a small balance to credit on the gross assets. and liabilities,. As against this credit, balance, there were the lawyer's expenses and the expenses of realisation. Ho had lio doubt bad tho prisoner administered tlio estate himself lie would have been able to pay 20s in the pound. Ho did not promise to facilitate Anderson's discharge if lie facilitated tho recovery of the moneys in the banks.

Constable May deposed to bringing back the prisoner from Sydney, He had in his possesion when, arrested £l2 10s in money, and a quantity of'jewellery. All this properly was handed over to witness, Mr Chapman next asked witness if tho property produced was all he had ?

Mr Tanner objected to the question contending that evidence of that sort, seeing that the prisoner was in custody at the time, was not admissible.

HisHonov asked if tlio quostionput by the Crown Prosecutor was of sullicient importance to be asked, he would later consider its admissibility. Mr Chapman said he intended asking the question as it was of importance.

Air Tanner agn/ii contended that the question should not be asked. If the evidence of tho constable on that particular matter was not admitted by IJis Honor, the case for the prosecution must fall to the ground. Even if it was admitted it was then a case of just one man's evidence against, another, and it was not a case to go I to a jury.

His Honor said there was 110 reason why the jury should not convict the prisoner on one man's evidence.

Mr Tanner submitted that the communication made by the prisoner to the constable when in custody as to whether that was all the properly lie had, could not be adduced in evidence.

His Honor said that in his own mind he did not think the police should not be encouraged lo ask questions of prisoners after they were in custody. It was really a' case of cross-examination, but whether any such evidence obtained was legally admissible was another thing, He thought it WHS legally admissible.

Tho Constable deposed that when he asked prisoner if that was all the property lie had lie replied iu the allirmalive.

After some other unimportant evidence the case for tho Crown was closed.

Mr Tanner said lie intended to odor no evidence, but he would ask the prisoner to make a statement. His Honor, after consideration, said tluit be did not think bo could allow the prisoner to say anything, except on oath. Tin: (iiiouxi) or im; acqititai,. Mr Tanner then briclly addressed the jury, the principal point being that it had not been proved by the prosecution that the property found on prisoner when arrested on the other side was taken from New Zealand by him. It had consequently not been shown that be had defrauded his creditors. There was no case against the prisoner, and ho asked the jury to discharge him. His Honor concurred with the contention. The jury, without retiring, returned a verdict of not guilty,—N.Z. Times,