63. น
64
involved, is the question of the defendant's position. Cne more thing I want to say is this, the charge is one of perjury and it is a charge of making a false statement not on oath, and the charge is one which is connected with or akin to fraud. The suggestion is that the statement was made without justification for the advantage of the Company The Instone Banking Corporation. At the same time, I think I can say, it is not alleged here that the defendant has been guilty at any time of fraud for his own personal interest, apart from the interest in the Company. Nothing has come up in the evidence that suggests anything of that kind. The charge is serious enough and requires very careful consideration. The charge you quite under- stand. (Fach Juror in possession of a copy of the Certificate).
That Certificate is dated the 9th of August, and the question is whether it is a right statement of the Capital Account of the ank as shewn on that date, The defendant is accused of making this statement falsely.
That is to say, making, knowing what it means and what it states to be untrue. The particular statement in the Certificate and report which is concerned in this charge, is the statement that the Pank ind received the total amount of cash in respect of shares issued wholly for cash $876,750.00. The Crown have endeavoured to say that the
statement is untrue and that the defendant made it know- ing it to be untrue.
Now Gentlemen, the history of the Bank up to that date is all relative to the matter which you have to decide, It appears that in February 1927 the defendant was in possession of three contracts, contracts which he had made with certain persons with whom we are not concerned Under these contracts he had acquired certain rights of selling certain bonds in the regions of which Hong Kong formed a part, and Singapore another. He and certain Chinese ventlemen decided to form the Instone Bank and that the Bank should take over these agreements. Mr. Brewer assigning any benefit from these agreements to the Bank, and they agreed to pay him $68,000.00. The Dank was in- ccrporated and shortly after, an agreement between the Bank and -r. Brewer was signed and the Dank thus started owing ur. Brewer $63,000. 00. A further agreement was come to between -r, brewer and the Bank, by which the Bank gave up the Singapore portion of these privileges and ar. Brewer refunded $55,000.00. The bank thus owed Mr. Brewer 13, 000. 00. when you come to the allottment of shares, you find these sums of money again. $13,000.00 was used by Mrs. Brewer to pay for the first amount payable in respect of the shares which he was going to sell. As to a further $7,000.00, one of the Directors had earned commission from the Bank for this sum and $7,000.00 was used so that this Director might pay the money for his own shares. $48,000. 00 was used in respect of shares purchased by mrs. Drewer. we have this fact, that money which was debited in the vanks books, was ultimately used for the purchase of the ank's shares. Therefore, of $100,800.00 - $68,000.00 cônsisted of a debit against the Bank and by various book entries became the Capital of the Bank. That, Gentlemen, appears