Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

In re Reynolds, 1874

[insolvency, absconding]


In re Reynolds

Police Court, Palmerston
Price SM, 27 April 1874
Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 1 May 1874, p 2




Monday, April 27.

(Before E. W. Price, S.M.)

S. E. Reynolds was brought before the Court at 10 o'clock p.m., on a warrant charging him with attempting to abscond by the Contest.

Dr. Kaufmann appeared for theprosecutor, Mr. Jones; and Mr. W. V. Smith tor the defendant.

In opening the case, Dr. Kauffinann objected to it being heard at that time, on the ground of short notice, the unsuitable hour, and not being able to get his witnesses together that evening.

Mr. Smith argued at length against the objections of Dr. Kauffmann, pointing out the hardship that would accrue to his client by being stopped at the last moment, when the prosecutor and others were perfectly aware (he understood) of the defendant's intention to leave by the Contest. His client had been arrested shortly after 8 o'clock that evening, and the vessel was to sail early the next morning. He said he would prove that the defendant was not going to leave the province, but that he was only anxious to surrender to the Insolvent Court, and took the opportunity of going by the Contest, it being the first vessel that had been advertised to sail for Port Adelaide. Mr. Smith then produced a telegram from Messrs. Boucaut & Bruce, which stated that a deed of assignment had been or was in the course of being executed by them for Mr. S. E. Reynolds. Mr. Smith then called the defendant, S. E. Reynolds, who stated that to the best of his belief he had been adjudicated an insolvent. Entertained that belief on the faith of telegrams received by him. Never made any secret of his going to leave the Northern Territory by the Contest. Paid his passage on the 24th April (receipt produced). Was going to Adelaide only and solely for the purpose of surrendering to the Insolvent Court, in consequence of instructions received from Boucaut & Bruce. Had communicated with the Insolvent Court, and in consequence took the first opportunity of going to Adelaide.
The Special Magistrate decided that if defendant would abide by the decision of the Court at the hearing of the adjourned case, he would accept bail, and allow him to go by the Contest.
Bail was allowed, in one surety. 

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School