The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-08-21 00:00:00

SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST 1.
BANKRUPT AT WORDSLEY.

At the Tillerley Hill Police Court on T teelas,
before Mr. U. 0 Firmstone and Mr. Henry Stnitii,
Joseph Hand, hop merchant, of Werdsley, eirdesrei
on remand charged with variou soffences on .er the
B4nkruptcy Act, Mr. C. H. Collis proscud, an
Mr. Fitzgerald (instructed by Messrs. I ()minty
and Holberton) defended,— At the previuu h. ar
ing two of the charges were dismisseo, ant upon
another defendantwas committed for trial, lu ths
first case gone into defendant was charge I with
being privy to the making of a false entry of a ea) -
ment of £36 8s 6d to one Lowe with the inter. t to
conceal the state of his affairs, and that he did
after the presentation of the bankruptcy p, ti ion,
attempt to account for part of his propert y by n
fictitious loss, to wit, byla payment of £36 8s to
Lowe in the month of February, 1886, Mr. Collis
n opening, said the defendant was ordered by th
Bankruptcy Court to render a debtor and creditor
statement of money received since 1882, and he wit
further ordered to render a statement of a sum of
£3OO odd which he admitted receiving three Is eek,
before he filed his petition. The Official lteceiver
was not able to find out whom this money went to,
and, in fact, did not know now. Defendant rend
ered the statement of £3OO which he admitted re
ceiving, and in phut statement there was a sum of
£36 Bs, said to have been handed one Lowe, who
was formerly a clerk of Mr. Hand's. Lowe left
defendant's employ, he believed in March, 1884, and
in the statement there was the sum of £36 8+ paid
to Lowe on the, 25th February. Two days after-
wards there was also another sum paid to ' Lowe.
Defendant was asked by the Official Receiver if he
had the receipt for this £36 Bs, and he said he had
not been in the habit of taking receipts from Lowe,
Defendant was further asked if had a receipt for
£5. and he said he had. The clerk was dismissd
as:trade had fallen off. and he obtained an appoint-
ment under Mr. North, a brick manufacturer. s.
Lowe, clerk, said he left Hand at the end of March,
1884. After he left he did occasional booking for
Mr. Hand. Since be left he had had only one sum
from Hand for bookkeeping. This was £5, and he
gave the receipt produced for it. It was dated 22nd
February, 1886. This was for work done up to
that date. This covered the whole amount duo for
his services. He had given Motland another re-
ceipt for bookkeeping besides, for the £5. It was
for £36 Bs. He did not receive that money. The
receipt was destroyed by Mr. Hand a day or two
after it was given. A few days afterwards be saw
Mr. Hand, and he asked him to destroy the receipt
as be had destroyed the cheque. Witness knew
he had done something wrong, and was afraid of
the consequences. He did not ask for the receipt at
tho time the cheque was drawn. Mr. Hand did de-
stroy the receipt. Cross-examined: Some time
before the filing of the petition he might have sug-
gested to Hand to pack up the boxes and send them
out of the way. Mr. Hand suggested that some
thingo should go to his (witness's) holm, and wit.
rase replied they had better all go t one place.
He did not keep the cheque in hie possession for a
few days. flo was summensd tu the Bankruptcy
Court to answer a specific matter and he was not
an informer, and the specific matter was to ascertatn
that he had hileiVeti the £BB Se. He had written
notes to the bankrupt linos the failure, and re.
quested they should he burnt, as he did not wish to
be mined up is the matter On one occasion he
- and besot him, sad said, "htr. Hand.

!talked