§ DR. CAMERON (Glasgow, College)asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Auld, a bankrupt in Aberdeen, who was sent to prison on the 4th November last for contempt of Court, and has been kept there ever since; whether the said contempt consisted in the debtor's having, after having sworn that he had disclosed everything in his power with regard to his effects, alleged that he could not tell what he had done with one particular sum of money which he had received a year before; whether it is true that the Court of Session has decided that the Sheriff acted within his powers in committing Auld for contempt, and that the Sheriff has declared that it is not competent for him to consider whether Auld has been sufficiently punished by any amount of imprisonment, but that he should be "stultifying past decisions" were he to release Auld without any appreciable change in his position; and, whether, seeing that if the bankrupt's inability to answer the question is genuine he may be imprisoned for life unless the Crown interferes, he will order Auld's release and have him tried, if the facts seem to warrant prosecution, for perjury or fraudulent bankruptcy?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)My attention has been called to this case. The bankrupt uplifted about £170 from the bank, and professed to account for the disappearance of a large part of this sum—some £60—by pretending it had been stolen by someone who broke open a locked drawer in his house. Of this alleged theft he never informed the police. He further gave no explanation of what he had done with the other sums of £50, £10, £10, and £20, admittedly in his possession. After repeated warnings by the Sheriff he was committed to prison. The statement in the Question regarding the Court of Session's decision is correct. The Sheriff stated, when the case came before him again, that it was not competent for him to liberate the bankrupt unless he complied with the order for 1821 disobedience to which he was committed, and used the words quoted in the Question. It is not in my power to order the release of the prisoner, nor do I intend at present to raise a prosecution. I must point out to my hon. Friend that there may be quite sufficient ground for confining a bankrupt who withholds information which by Statute he is bound to disclose, while there may be no sufficient evidence in a criminal prosecution in which the accused is entitled to withhold all information.
§ DR. CAMERONasked, why the man had been detained without any evidence?
§ MR. J. H. A. MACDONALDThe man is detained for refusing to answer questions which he is bound to answer.