A SOLICITOR'S CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 171, 21 July 1928, Page 12

A SOLICITOR'S CASE.

AN EXPLANATION. Mr. A. G. Denniston writes: It is not your fault that your report of my case before the Court of Appeal is lopsided; you, of course, published what was telegraphed to you. But it certainly reads as if I had no side to the matter at all. In the first place, the three amounts held by me were small balances of larger amounts which came into my hands in the ordinary course. I held these balances in each case for costs which were due to me. Anyone having dealings with the legal fraternity is well aware that costs are always deducted, and I claimed that I had a right to protect myself in the ordinary way. All the details of these transactions are clearly set forth in an affidavit filed by me in the Court of Appeal, but it seemed curious that no reference was made in your telegraphed report to even the fact that I had filed an affidavit. Indeed, by baldly stating that I was neither present nor represented by counsel, it pave the impression that I had ignored the whole proceedings. I was advised that an affidavit would be sufficient and that my appearance, either personally or by counsel, was unnecessary. The enclosed letter from Mr. R. A. Meek makes it very clear why my side was not put to the Court of Appeal. This letter, as you will see, states that my affidavit wa.s not read or used in Court, or even brought to the notice of their Honors the Judges, and this for two reasons only—firstly, because it was headed up "In the Supreme Court" instead of "In the Court of Appeal," and, secondly, because it was not printed on paper of the regulation size. These two technicalities —trifling surely, in the extreme, considering the matter was one where my life was practically at stake —precluded mv side of the matter being put before the Court, and therefore there appeared to be no explanation given by me. Nor were these technicalities even mentioned in Court. Furthermore, you will see that the letter states that it was explained in Court that I had paid everyone all that was due, whereas your telegraphed report says that I had been making, attempts to settle with my creditors. This inconsistency is fatal to me. My affidavit clearly and specifically states that all matters were satisfactorily settled and that in each case my full casts claimed had been provided for —and it ha.s been my contention all along that I was entitled to them. No one is the loser of one single penny through any action of mine. 1 am not criticising the judgment of the Court; the Judges acted on the evidence before them; but had my affidavits been submitted to them —instead of being barred by such formalities—l aiu certain that a very different judgment would have been delivered. Anyone is entitled to see a copy of the affidavits at anv time.