THE HARPER CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5199, 5 December 1895, Page 3

THE HARPER CASE.

IA CONDITIONAL VERDICT OP " NOT GUILTY." lly Telegraph.—Press Association. CmiisrciiUKCii, Wednesday. Tho Harper case was continued at tho Supreme Court this morning. Mr Skerrett, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prosecution, reviewed the evidence at considerable length. Sir Robert Stout, in addressing the jury for the defence, said he had never before heard a Crown Prosecutor apologising for a prosecution. One peculiarity about the case on the part of the prosecution was the introduction of extraneous mattei in order to prejudice the jury against the accused. Another peculiarity was the Government's inactivity in prosecuting, nor could any parallel case be found of a Government prosecuting a trustee for a breach of trust without the intervention of some private person. He attributed the action of the Government to the fact that thoy desired, for political purposes, to show that they would punish people of high social position. Ho dealt at some length with the evideuce, and concluding he said the firm of Harper and Co. had been punished sufficiently. They were bankrupt, and had lost their good name; yet that could not satisfy some people's greed for vengeance. The firm had foolishly entered into a banking business, had lost other people's money, and were prosecuted, When some banks lostmillions of other people's money, the same Government which sought to punish Harper came to their assistance with millions more. Ho hoped the jury would give such a verdict as would tell tho administrators of justice it must be pure and unbiassed, and not private vengeuco. His Honor, in summing up, said 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 mado. The jury had to decide whether the accused had committed an offence under section 79 of tho Larceny Act, 1807. No doubt the accused was aco-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 tlio jury correct in understanding that His Honor has ruled that the fact of the accused having been aware that the firm was in difficulties in 1887, and with that knowledgo having placed money on deposit with his firm, does not constitute a fraudulent conversion if done with the consent of the beneficiaries ?"

His Honor said that wns his ruling, subject to review afterwards. It did not constitute a fraudulent conversiou if the money was deposited with the consent of tho beneficiaries,

At 1.55 the jury again returned, when the foreman stated that they could not agree, nor was (hero any possibility of agreement, The Judge ordered the jury to be locked up for 12 hours. At 5.15 p.m. the jury brought in the following preliminary verdict That the jury, under the direction of his Honor on a question of law, unanimously found the accused not guilty, His Honor reserved several points raised during the ease, and also that of direction. The Court adjourned till next day.