SOLICITOR IN DOCK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 260, 2 November 1932, Page 8

SOLICITOR IN DOCK.

CHARGES OF THEFT. USE OF CLIENT'S FUNDS. MISAPPROPRIATION ALLEGED. The trial was commenced, at the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Herdman and a jury, of Charles Stewart Leahy, solicitor, of Auckland. The indictment against accused was that on.March 7, 1931, having received £25. on account of a sum of £170 13/ for Frederick John Young, and for distribution pro rata among his creditors, he fraudulently applied the same to his own purposes. There was a second count in the. indictment, namely, that, on November 30, accused, having received £114 12/4 on account of Young, did fraudulently apply this sum to his own purposes.

Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. J. F. W. Dickson. He was allowed to leave the dock and sit beside his counsel, at - the barristers' table.

The Crown Prosecutor, Mr. V. R. Meredith, said Leahy was practising as a barrister and solicitor until May IS last, when he was suspended. The allegations against him concerned money belonging to Young, who, last February, sold a launch which he owned for £525. There was a mortgage of £300 on the

vessel, and the balance of £200 odd was paid, on Young's behalf, by the firm of Stewart, Johnston and Campbell, solicitors, to accused. Young instructed accused that a sum of £176 13/ should be distributed amongst his creditors. It was alleged that Leahy had stolen the sums mentioned in the charge. Effect of a Document. Last May, Young was served with a bankruptcy notice by his creditors. He went to Leahy's office, and . there signed a document. This, • counsel suggested, was a trap for Young to excuse Leahy for not applying the money as he had been ' directed. The date of this document was altered by Leahy by two days. Within a month, over £41 of Young's money- was ' transferred to Leahy's account. The suggestion, said Mr. Meredith, would be made that Leahy had authority to. handle the money of his client. Obviously, on the face of it, it could not be expected that a solicitor should be given a free hand to invest the money as he pleased. If this was permitted, such money would be held up almost indefinitely, and would not be available 1 for the purpose which" the client had directed.

Mr. Meredith said after the £41 had been transferred to Leahy's account he instructed his clerk to transfer the balance of f 114 to'the credit of a man named Wheeler. In a trust account a debit was illegal, but in the account of Wheeler there was a debit of over £500. Wheeler left New Zealand some years ago, and his account had been used by accused as a regular "money spinner." Mr. Dickson made objection at this stage to reference to the details of Wheeler's account.apart from the items concerned in the case. . Mr. Meredith said the allegation; by the prosecution would be that systematic use was made of Wheeler's account to transfer large sums, to Leahy's fees account, A' total of over £2700 was concerned. ..;■'; - >;.-,.; His; Honor ruled, that reference , to the'details ; .of Wheeler's account was permissible in' Counsel's' opening, but he granted' Dickson : leave to object, to the • admission of • such ■ evidence •as he desired when' evidence was given. ~.Mr.- Meredith said the money had not been distributed by Leahy for the purpose;to which it, t was .intended'by its owner, "nor was it now-available. It was a simple case in its essence. ■;Sale,Of a Launch. • Evidence in support of the charge was given by Young, a boatbuilder . and labourer residing at Colville. 'Witness said; at ;the time he sold his launch he knew I Leahy > just by sight. He met him about this time i and .instructed him. to take over'the, money : from Stewart, Hough and Campbell. Witness made no. arrangement at the time about legal expenses with Leahy. Witness had never had - an account of - what accused had done with his money: In May witness got a bankruptcy notice from his principal creditors, and went to see Leahy. When.witness handed the bankruptcy notice to accused he just, laughed,and said: "We'll fix this up."-' A conversation took place. Leahy thought for several minutes, and then commenced to draft a document: Later he handed the document to one of his clerks, saying: "You are a better writer than I am. Take this." Then he dictated the contents of the document and passed it to witness, saying: "If you will -sign that, everything will be fixed up at an early date." Witness glanced at the document hurriedly and signed it. This was on May 19. Witness had since examined the document. The date on it had apparently been altered. * Dealings Wth Another Man. Witness said he-could not remember if he ever gave an order in favour of Rope, Ltd. He gave an order on Rope, Ltd.; for someone else: Witness used to go to a man named Tiddy before he saw Leahy. Tiddy was in Rope's private room. Witness had had dealings with Rope, having borrowed £25 from him. He could not say if Tiddy fixed Up the Witness left his affairs in Tiddy's hands. Tiddy was keeping witness' books.

Replying to the judge, witness said he was seeing Tiddy for about six months over the boat transaction. He had repaid £9 of the money he had borrowed from Rope. Witness did not remember Rope saying that he would not fix up the lending of the £25 until Hope saw Leahy. Ke-examined by Mr. Meredith, witness said he did not know until the present proceedings were started that Leahy was a partner in Rope's. They occupied adjoining" rooms in the same office building. j ...... The hearing is proceeding.