CO129-535-5 N.I. Brewer- transcript of trial and evidence 1-1-1929 - 31-12-1931 — Page 16

A.

A.

A.

3 13 13 13 13 184

A.

A.

Q.

ર

A.

A.

14.

That showed a receipt and a payment for an equivalent amount on the same date?. Yes.

16

Really a transfer of indebtedness by the transfer of ars. Brewer's debt to the instone Trading Company. Yes.

Whether the balance $405,000.00 was actually a cash transaction or not, you are unable to say?. No, my Lord.

Since the balance sheet of 1928.

This loan figure

has been still further reduced to a lower figure?. I cannot tell you, my Lord.

Is the Instone Trading Company Shem as a debtor to to the firk?.

No, an asset of the firm.

The instone Trading Company is shewn as owing money? No, the $405,000.00 was repaid and used by the Company to purchase shares in the Instone Trading Company.

The shares of the Instone Trading Company are now an asset to the Bank?,

Yes, my Lord, in place of the loan.

Gentlemen of the Jury, have you any question you would like to put to T. Brewer?,

R. FITZROY:

Air. Brewer i

.

Fitzroy:

kis Lordship'

Mr. Brewer i

lir. Fitzroy: Mir Breweri

his Lordship:

That is my case for the Crown.

My learned friend is not calling lir. Leo Ping CINA 551?. (Referran to on page 52 5 the Pub,

Kyamination),

This man can be called,

The position la this . Brewer, that any witness on the record who is not made use of hy tha trom, may be made use of by the defend- ant. You are therefore permitted to call any witness on the record who has not already been called.

Can I rely on the prosecution producing this witness at the proper time?.

Yeɛ.

The Prosecutor has made out no cese which should be submitted to the jars,

I don't think there is any nood, but I am prepared to lieton to you.

(Mr. Brewer then referred to zevoral legal precedents dealing

with cases of a similar nature as the present one).

His Lordships

år, ärever i

I am ¿ale of these but the matter is one for the jury.

The poină ia that in every one of these cases these people who have signed are genuine people

- not fictitious Directors of the Company - and were running themselves liable to execution. I will merely content myself with saying that it is a charge which should have been on the evidence of two people and the books themselveu are not sufficient. Ther has only been the evidence of one person in the chargs and various books and vouchers.