DISTRICT COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 669, 9 June 1870, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, Jun 7. (Before Mr Justice Clarke.) APPOINTMENT OF CROWN PROSECUTOR. Mr Pitt drew his Honor's attention to his having resigned the appointment of Crown Prosecutor, previously held by him, and that Mr Home now acted in that capacity. The Clerk to the Court then read the Gazette notice with respect to Mr Home's appointment. BE HNA T. TOTTENHAM. The Crown Prosecutor stated his readiness to proceed with the business of the Court. The case of Reg. v. Tottenham, which had been adjourned from the previous sittiug of the Court, was the first on the list, but he had been given to understand that tho prisoner was an inmate of the District

Hospital, and his condition such as to preclude the possibility of bis attendance. He should call medical evidence to satisfy the Court on that point. Dr Thorpe was called but did not appear, and it was decided to adjourn the further consideration of the case till the afternoon.

FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY. Reoina v. George William Brown: —The defendant was charged in the indictment with being guilty of a misdemeanour, in having made an assignment of his estate for the benefit of his creditors, on the 25th January IS7O, and on the day following having concealed the sum of £l3 5s with intent to defraud his creditors.

The defendant, who had retained no counsel, pleaded not guilty. The jury were then empannelled and sworn, the defendant exercising his right of challenge against R. C. Reid, T. N. King, Thomas Anslow, William Struthers, and William J Patterson. The Crown Prosecutor stated that the indictment had been brought under the 18th Sec. of the Bankruptcy Act, 1867, and he purposed to show that the defendant had been guilty under j that act of a misdemeanour, and had rendered himself liable to a penalty not exceeding three years' imprisonment, with or without hard labor. He regretted that the defendant was without professional assistance, but any disadvantage the defendant might labor under would, he felt sure, be more than made up by his Honor, who he well knew, would guard the defendant against any undue pressure on the part of the Crown. He should call the evidence of the Trustee in defendant's estate, who would prove, that after several denials on the part of the defendant as to his having mouey, he had obtained possesion from him of the sum of £l3 ss, and it would be shown that the defendant had attempted to conceal the money from the creditors, thereby fraudulently depriving his creditors of the benefit of that sum. Other witnesses would be called, who would give corroboratory testimony.

Francis Harris, sworn: —I am Clerk of the District Court of Westland North. The deed produced was executed by G-eorge William Brown and was filed in this Court January 24th, 1870. Thestatemeutproduced was filed the following day. By defendant: I cannot say whether you were present on the 25th when the statement was filed. David Leslie, sworn: I know defendant. My signature is attached to the deed of assignment. By virtue of it I took possession of his property. I left town in company with the de-fon-lont or, .TariaaEy 24th about 4 p.m. to proceed to his store. VTelercrat) outa quarter of an hour after the deed was executed. There was a conversation

on the way up with regard to his affairs. I positively asked him if he had any money and he denied that he had any. Mrs Brown was at the store. I visited the store on the following day, the 25th, and again on the 26th. Lyons and Dewdney were with me on the last occasion. Either Dewdney or 1, at the time, asked him if he had any money, and he again stated that he had none. There was an inquiry about the sale of some butter. He acknowledged having disposed of some butter, and he was then asked about the money. He thereupon went behind a petition into a room adjoining. Dewdney and Lyons were both present, but 1 alone followed him into the room, and found

the" defendant taking money out of a pocket-book. I asked for the book, and he reluctantly gave it to me. I cannot -remember whether he said the butter was sold on credit or for cash. There were £l2 in notes and about 35s in silver in the pocket-book. He gave me the money after I had asked him, in the presence of Dewdney and Lyons, whether he had any money and he had replied none. By defendant: I remember Jan.. 24. I recollect your object in coming to Westport that day ; that it was to file your schedule, Tou met me in Fleming's store. Ido not remember Fleming saying he would give you time if you made an assignment, nor do I remember saying the same. I followed you to the stores the evening of the day the assignment was made. The inventory of your stock was taken by me from your dictation, and I then left the store. I was perfectly sober I was not behind the counter. I

slept in a digger's hut that night. I played cards there and had some brandy or other liquor. On the 26th I saw you at the storejn company with Dewdney and Lyons. On that occasion we questioned you together, and I believe you refused to answer us. Tou did not, so far as I recollect, fa 11 me that Mrs Brown had sold the butter. Tou might have said to some one behind the partition "Annie, where's the money." After speaking about the keg of butter you went into the room to get some money. It was about 3 p.m. when I told you to leave the house. I believe you asked to remain in tho house on account of the woman and four children. Tou left the house that afternoon. I cannot swear the money jou gave me belonged to you. I came up a few days afterwards, and sent for you to make out some bills, the books being torn to pieces. Tou assisted me to make out the accounts, and accompanied me in delivering all the bills except one, and that [ said you need not trouble about. Tho bills were not all correct. I received payment from some of those indebted to the estate, so far as the accounts were correct. His Honor said he desired to give the defendant every latitude in con-

ducting his cross-examination, but the questions were altogether irrelevant. Cross-examination resumed : I sold the store and contents assigned by you. (Inventory produced and read.) I saw no retort, but it may have been surreptitiously placed about the promises subsequently. I examined every place thoroughly. William Lyons sworn : I am a packer. I know the defendant, and have packed for him. I know David Leslie and Thomas Dewdney. Defendant was a miner and storekeeper at Christinas Terrace. I met Leslie and Dewdney at defendant's store two I days after the assignment was made.

I saw defendant's books at the store some weeks before January 25. He denied the possession of any books at that time. I said "It is needless to deny having any books as I know you have." He said "So help me God, Billy, I have got no books." He said the scraps of paper handed to MrLeslie were the only books he had kept. Defendant got very excited, and I maintained that he had a book. He then said the book had been destroyed by the children, and produced the boards, which he said were all that was left of it. I recollect taking up goods to him from time to time, and amongst them a keg of butter. Dewdney enquired what bad become of the butter, and defendant said the keg of butter was sold. He said he had sold it to Grant for cash and had received the money. Previous to that he declared that he had not a shilling in the world. Mr Leslie then demanded the money he had obtained for the butter, and he did not seem inclined to give it up, but finally did so. He went into a bed-room, and I heard the chink of money. Leslie followed hi in into the room, and I saw Brown with a pocket-book. Leslie took the book from him and the loose silver out of bis hand, I cannot remember the amount. There were dSL2 in notes.

By defendant • I did not follow Leslie into the room, but followed him up towards the doorway, and could See Leslie and you in the children's room. I took £9 to Mr Alcorn for you, but I cannot say whether it was on the sth of January. It was not at my instigation that Leslie had you arrested. I often advised Leslie to do so. I did not say on a previous occasion in this Court that I would give you two years, if it cost me £SOO. Dewdney said he would not allow a man to get the best of him by fraud, if it even cost him money to prevent it. I believe I said that, in selecting your trustee, you had picked the wrong man. I have not provoked you on various occasions. I was fined £2 but I denied having assaulted you.

Thomas Dewdney was called but, previous to being sworn, informed his Honor that ho had not been subpoenaed, and had been in Court while the previous witness had given a portion of his evidence. His Honor objected to the witness being sworn. . John Grant, miner, was called to give evidence with respect to the purchase of the butter. His evidence was unimportant. He had had manv dealings with defendant, but could no't say exactly at what time or what articles he had purchased. No further evider.ee was called for

the prosecution. Defendant called one witness, named Fleming, whose evidence only had reference to the question of time being granted, on condition that he made an assignment, and then briefly addressed the Court.

. He said that he had been induced to make an assignment on the representation that time would be granted him to pay his liabilities, and on the second

day he was turned out with his four children without a shilling or shelter. If he had desired to rob his creditors he would not have paid away £9O shortly before his assignment, but would have stuck to the money, in place of concealing, as alleged, a" fewpaltry pounds of butter. He had not kept a shilling belonging to his creditors. He had worked a share in a claim for twelve months, and that share he had not transferred as he could have done, had he intended to act dis-

honestly, but had assigned it along with his remaining property. With respect to the money, he knew nothing about it. The butter was sold for £3 12s by the womau who kept the store and took charge of the children. He asked the woman for the money, and Leslie took both the proceeds of the butter and also the money belonging to the woman.

His Honor went over the evidence in his summing up to the jury, and pointed out that the evidence of Lyons, except as confirming the evidence of Leslie, had been given in such a manner that he could not direct them to attach much weight to it. There were two questions for them to consider : They must first be satisfied that the niouey really was the property of the defendant, and one witness would not swear that the money was his • and being satisfied as to that point, it would be then for them to consider whether tho defendant had fraudulently withheld the money. According to bis statement, which was not unreasonable, the woman in charge of the store had disposed of the butter, whether for cash or otherwise had not been stated, and he knew nothing about the matter. It would be for them to consider whether the defendant was awaro of the sale of the butter, and that tho money had been received for it; and if they had any reasonable doubt, they must give the defendant the benefit of such doubt.

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and the Court adjourned till 2 p.m.

BEGINA V. TOTTINGIIAM. This case had been adjourned for the production of Dr Thorpe to gi/e medical evidence as to the prisoner's condition. The witness was not in attendance, not having been subpoenaed, and the case was re-adjourned till the following day. REGINA T. O'NEILL. Mr Pitt, on behalf of the defendant, applied that the Hearing of the case be adjourned till the following day. His Honor consented. REGINA V. PICKUP AND PITTS. The Crown Prosecutor stated his inability to proceed forthwith with the case, as he had had no opportunity of goiusj over the depositions. Adjourned till the following day. | DECLARATIONS OP INSOLVENCY.

Mr Pitt, on behalf of the profession in Westport and Charleston, desired to elicit an expression of opinion from his Honor, with respect to declarations made by insolvent debtors when not attested by a solicitor. Persons had been in the habit of making declarations of insolvency and signing them before a Justice of the Peace. The Act distinctly laid down, in section 45, that the signature must be attested by a solicitor. Under section 317 it was enacted that any person who shall knowingly insert or cause to be inserted in any gazette any notice without authority, when found guilty, shall incur a penalty not exceeding £2O. He should be glad if his Honor would express a judicial opinion on the points. His Honor said that his attention had been previously directed to the subject, and he was inclined to the belief that the Act rendered it imperative that the signature must be attested by a solicitor. He could not see, however, that in all cases that was practicable, as there might be no solicitor in the district in which a declaration was made. He must give the matter consideration before expressing opinion definitely. REGINA V. BROWN.

The jury who had retired to consider their verdict in the above case not agreeing, the Court re-adjourned till 3.30 p.m., At which hour the Court resumed, and, the jury not being unanimous, was re-adjourned till 7 p.m., when a verdict of " Guilty" was returned, with a recommendation to mercy.

His Honor sentenced the prisoner to three months' imprisonment with hard labor.

Tho Court then adjourned till eleven a.m. the following day.

"Wednesday, Juwe 8. kegina t. tottenham. Dr Thorpe sworn : I am medical officer to the local Hospital. Joseph Tottenham, charged with larceny, is an inmate of the institution. He is not in a fit condition to appear and stand his trial. The Crown Prosecutor applied for the case to be adjourned till the next sitting of the Court. Adjourned accordingly. BEGINA. T. PICKUP AST) PITTS. The prisoners were charged with larceny. The Crown Prosecutor stated his inability to proceed with the case, in consequence of the absence of a material witness and the arresting constable. He applied for the case to be adjourned for the production of these witnesses till the next sitting of the Court. Adjourned accordingly. KEGIJTA V. OWEN O'NEILL. Defendant was charged with fraudulently concealing goods valued at £l3 5s on the 23rd February, 1870, having been adjudged bankrupt Pebruary 22, and having fraudulently omitted"certain property from his statement. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The Jury were empannelled and sworn; the defendant exhausting his right of challenge. Those objected to were—Hughes, Patterson, Bull, King, Osborne, and Anslow.

The Crown Prosecutor opened the case, and called

Francis Harris, sworn: I was appointed trustee in the estate of Owen O'Neill. I produce declaration of in solvency, petition, order of adjudication, and two statements. I asked O'Neill about a plough and harrow. He said he had forgotten them. He certainly admitted ownership, at least I inferred that they were his. The articles, stated in the indictment, do not appear in the statement, nor yet in the affidavit verifying the statement. Defendant told me on two occasions the statement represented the whole of his estate. He subsequently told me he had forgotten about the plough and harrow, and that they were lyin" at Packers' Point. " "

! By Mr Pitt: On the last occasion he made no concealment of where tho plough and harrow were Upon the application of Mr South, the estate was vested in the original trustee. On tho 11th February or about then I required O'Neill to give mo his books. 1 had an inventory of the things when 1 asked O'Neill if his statement was correct. I did not then call his attention to the things that had been omitted. I do not know whether he was aware that an inventory had been taken. There was a sitting of the District Court at which the brother and sister were examined before mo. One of the objects of that inquiry was

to ascertain whether any property had been fraudulently removed. I did not consider it necessary to institute any proceedings. upon that examination. Subsequently proceedings were instituted by me under the advice of Messrs Powell and Watson, the supervisors of the estate. The plough and harrow are of English make, not in very good condition. He-examined : The examination before me was, I think, to inquire after stock, &c, at Aldison's. I don't know much about the value of ploughs or harrows.

William Lloyd sworn : I am a com mission agent. I know the defendant I was employed by Mr Harris a trustee, to take a list of O'Neill's pro perty. I went to Packers' Poin about the 14th or 15th February. Tin list produced was taken by me, i contains a list of the stock at Packers Point. There were no ploughs noi harrows there then I found a clod valued at 15s, two r-ulk yokes 4s lantern 2s, two saddles and two bridle! £5 to £6. I was present whei Munro sold. None of the above articles were then there. On th< evening of the day of sale I saw de feudant with Mr Harris. I asked de fendaut, when I took the inventory,if h< had any more goods, he said I had goi all. I went through his grounds anc saw nothing of a plough or harrow. 3 cannot form an idea of their value. Cross-examined: I went to Addi son's about the middle of February to take an inventory. I saw O'Neil at Packers' Point, and told him the object of my journey. It might hav< been about the 9th or 10th of Feb ruary. Mr Pickering accompanied me. A few days after 1 went t( Packers' Point. Defendant said tht articles did not belong to him—the clock, yokes, and lantern—and when the sale took place they were no! there. I believe he told me he had given a statement of of his property. I do not know, of my own knowledge, where the plough and harrow came from when I first; saw them on the bank of the Buller. Ee-examined: I know defendant carried on business as a dairyman at Packers' Point. The defendant was

allowed to remain in charge on behalf of Mr Harris. John Uorr sworn: I am a storekeeper at Westport. I know the defendant. I was at the sale of the latter's property, held by Munro. I heard the auctioneer ask defendant if there was any more property. He said " No, that was all." After the sale was over I saw the harrow inside the paddock owned by O'Neill. I think I have seen it since at Munro's. I have several times seen O'Neill working with the plough. I know the plough, it was at Munro's auction mart that I last saw it. I recollect a meeting held for the object of an arrangement between O'Neill and his creditors, the list was read then. I caunot recollect whether any mention was made of a plough and harrow. I recollect the auctioneer asking for a clock and lantern at the sale. Cross-examined: The harrow was not concealed in the paddock. I asked defendant several questions at the meeting, when a deed of arrangement was spoken of. Defendant said if we did not accept 7s 6d we should get nothing. Thomas Watson: lam agent foe Spence Brothers and Co. I resolleci being at a meeting of creditors when defendant was present. I took down a statement of his[effects given by defend ant. The plough and harrow wercnotm eluded. He mentioned having had a lawsuit with a Mr Jones about tt( plough and harrow. He told me long ago that he should take the plougl and harrow. He had an action wit! Jones and it resulted, he told me, ii his purchasing them from Jones. Cross-examined: I cannot swea that the plough and harrow, nowii Molesworth-street, are the same thai he purchased from Jones. He decline to assign at the meeting because in could not get everything his own waj He afterwards filed. John Munro, sworn : I am an au( tioneer. I know defendant. Iwa instructed to sell property at Packer! Point. The sale took place March 3rc I rendered account sales. The plougl harrow, clock, &c. were not produce at the sale. I asked defendant if thei was any other property. He said n( thing else, and that many things wei on the list that should not have be* there. I have a plough and harro belonging to the estate of Owe O'Neill. Defendant was in charge <

the estate till I sold. The plough aM harrow would realise £lO or £l2. I should not offer it for sale unless thefl were at least two buyers. I Cross-examined • I might give a 9 or £5 or £6 for the plough. I Ke-exatnined : The plough and h:M row have since been sold for £4. ■ Thomas Field said: I am an irofl monger. I examined the plough arfl harrow at Mr Munro's. To a man wfl wanted them, the value of the safl would be £l2 ■ Cross-examined : I know thoplouM and harrow have since been soldfH Mr Pitt called no witnesses fl tho defence. The Crown Prosecutor, and fl Pitt on behalf of the defendant i'fl addressed the jury. His Honor then summed up 'fl instructed tho jury that tho iiuiifl monl cousistod of two separate Under the first count the was charged with having fraud reserved and concealed a the property. In considering 4 tho first and second count they -'■

be convinced that the defendant had acted fraudulently before they could find a verdict for the Crown; and before they would be able to find him guilty on the first count, they must ftlso be satisfied that the property fraudulently withheld amounted in value to £lO. There appeared some difficulty in arriving at the value of the plough and harrow, the amount had been variously estimated at from £1 to d 612, and it had been actually sold for £4. The sale might have been a pressed one, and the articles disposed of for less than their value, and it would be for the jury to consider whether the whole of the articles amounted to the required value. The second count was capable of a more liberal construction, the smallest omission, provided that they were satisfied as to the fraudulent intent,wouldjustify a verdict against the defendant, but the question of value must still be considered, and it would be for them to decide whether the value of the property omitted was such as to render it likely that the defendant would, to gain so small an advantage, have run the risk of a public prosecution. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty upon both counts, and the defendant was discharged