The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-08 00:00:00

Tin:-. -- _. T-1- ' '

. LTHE BANKRUPTCY PROSECUTION.q

re141015-r1

At the Police Court on Saturday, before Messrs.
H. 0. Firrnstene and T. D. Thomas, the adjournec;
case against Thomas Ganner, of the late firm of
Millward and Ganner, spade manufacturers, was
celled ; the charge being that Ganner concealed
property of the value of .210 or upwards within
four months of bankrnptcy.
Mr. Hooper appeared to prosecute on behalf of
the trustee (Mr. T. A. Smart) instructed by the
public prosecutor, and Mr. Shakespeare defended.
Mr. Hooper, in opening, referred to the fact that
John Millvvard. Ganner's partner, was committed
for trial on several charges connected with the
bankruptcy of the firm, and discoveries began to be
rnads on the day of his committal of a quantity of
concealed property belonging to the estate. The
search lasted several days. and property was found
buried in the garden of Millward's house, and con-
cealed in every conce7vable place at the works.
The property thus recovered was twenty-four tone
iii weight, nd was sold by the. trustee for £165 8s
ha. It was not merely irou and steel that wi.s.
hidden, but different classes of tools, no less than
sixty in number. They now charged Gannet. wil h
participation in the coneealment of those goods;
and Mr. Hoop '2' said it was hardly to be supposed
that that quantity of goods could disappear, forming
one-third of tho stock and tools without Gartner a,.
a partner being aware of i • Rs then referral to
the direct evidence he was bringing forward in
support of the present charge, and mentioned that
when the revelatiors about the concealed gools
were made Millward, who was in gaol %%sailing, Ws
trial (bail being refueled), saw it in the newspapers,
and he then made a voluntary statement to the
trustee.

In reply to the Clerk, Mr. Hooper said he did
not propose to prove that.
Mr. Shakespeare said it could not be put in evi.
dence, and should not have been mentioned.
i'nlr. Hooper said he colfd quite understal d it
would be open to comment by his friend that
hitherto Mr. Ganner had been treated by the oustee
and by all of them as a person entirely innoceet of
concurrence in what had taken place, and thei e
had been regarded as having himself been di ped.
Mr. Hooper then called his witnesses, and the ex-
amination and cross-examination ef Mrs. Millw .rd
wife of John Millward, was very lengthy. She 'se
cautioned by the Bench that she was not bout d to
answer questions t-nding to criminate herself. She
stated that what took place as regarded burying the
things in the garden was against her wish, elle she
" would not" see anything of what was done. Hee
particular statement ,s ( Gins viv tha she once
saw him take some things awu the garden that he
had brought to the house in a barrow. Mr. Shake-
speare severely cross-examined the witness, and On
Mr. Hooper intervening as to witness not I( inv.
nonnd to answer some of the questions put, Mr.
Shakespeare said that the trustee was trying to rio-
ted one of the thieves who had robbed the estate.
witness's husband was in gaol, her soi. 11::d
.ibseonded, and her evidence was not enotdi to
hang a cat on.
The Cleilt remarked to Mr. Hooper tbat he undo.
stood the trustee wanted to find the son.
Mr. Hooper said they were using every means to
find him, and there were rewards out.
Mrs. Millward said she did not know where her
son was now, but she mentioned one place whe.e
had been. She admitted she had herself been owly
moms time, but said it was because she had been
roubled and werii-ci, not becauie she was efraid.
'4uestionel as to the alleged loss of 138 by hei
iiusband in Birmingham. witness said she sent her
son the same night, after her husband came herce,
to tell Ganner the pocketbook was found. It was
not the right book. She denied sending to say the
money was found. •
, Mr. Hooper again interposed with rregerd to
questions put to witness; and Mr. Shakespeare a,:ia
that his friend was there as representing the Plibl'e
Prosecutor, anxious to see justice done, and it did
uot devolve upon him to get up and object to the
; questions. It was tor the woman hers. If to obj,et
to answer any.
The Bench said they thought the witness must
use her own discretion as to declining to answer
any question tending to incriminate herself or her
husband.

Mr. Hooper said he should like it to go cn the
notes that the solicitot for the prosecution was re-
fused permission to interpose as to the questions
put to the wi..ness. How c )uld an illiterate -woman
tall whether his friend was adopting proper hoe of
examination?

Mrs. Millward declined to answer some i,f the
questions which followed, but admitted she had
heard the notes inelusied in the £l3B said to be
!oat had been traced to her son. She said she
bought some bacon boxes, bat denied that she
bought them to bury wane of the concealed property
She did not think she should havo given any
u formation about the matter if the things had nut
been found.

Several witnesses were called to support Mrs.
lfillwa,rd's statement as to Gannet's alleged rt.
moral of a barrow load of property, but their evi
deuce, as appeared sub.equently, did not satisfy the
Bench. There was also evidence given Vett aftyr
the discovery of the hidden property Ganner
acknowledged to the trustea that be was aware of
some iron being at the back of the forge, tut t'ris
it appeared at a later s'age of the prweedings was
only of the value of a few ounds.
Mr. Shakespeare made an earnest address on be-
half of Ganner, Up to the time he unfortunately
joined Millward in partnership he had be a a
medical student with no expeeience of basinew, an?
he was induced to enter into the busineis because
of the plausible promises made to him. He found
a total burn of £425 in June last, al cf which had
been lost, and did they think it possil le or likely
that this young ma nhad been going round commit-
ting robberies—for they were nothing le-e tan
robberies ? Who was most likely to have done such
things, Ganne.r or the ne nin eeol? Coald they
doubt that Mrs Millward now came forward to
soften the feeling against her hupbandt and in the
hope to bring her son back without being prose-
cuted? He urged that there was no reliance to be
placed oe her word, and that. the other evidence did
not sustain the charge.
The Bench said they had been much impressed
by Mr. Shakespeare's address, and expressed their
intention to dismiss the case. The announcement
was received with some applause.
Mr. "Hooper
.mentioned that there was another
°barge, bti tit the PubliciPr, sacutor concurred, aud
the trustee could see his way to withdraw it he
would probably do so.