SOLICITOR GUILTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 261, 3 November 1932, Page 8

SOLICITOR GUILTY.

FUNDS OF A CLIENT. MISAPPROPRIATION PROVED. SUMMING UP BY JUDGE. The trial of Charles Stewart Leahy, aped 44,. solicitor, of- Auckland, ended this afternoon at the Supreme Court, when a verdict of guilty on one charge was returned. Leahy was charged on two counts with fraudulently applying the funds of a client, Frederick John Young, to another purpose than that for which he received them. The amounts were £25 and £114 12/4. Accused, who pleaded not guilty, was represented by Mr. J. F. W. Dickson. During the later stages of yesterday's hearing, Reginald Walter Mander, who had been in Leahy's employ for three years, said accused told Young that his money was invested and that he was getting interest on it. Detective's Evidence. Detective Sergeant Doyle said he saw Leahy on September 12 and told him that clients of his alleged that he had misappropriated their money. Leahy said ho would come next day and explain the position, but he did not arrive. When witness saw him on October 3, accused said: "I mentioned the matter to Mr. Sullivan (accused's counsel at that stage), and lie said, 'If it was any other detective than Doyle I should say go and see him, but not him. He will get you Wγ there and get your statement, and you will finish up in the boob. He is too harclj keep away from him.'" The officer added that Leahy said lie had instructions from Young, subsequently confirmed in writing, to transfer his money to the account of another client, one Wheeler. Case for Defence. Mr. Dickson said Young was a client of Leahy's and had been visiting his office six months before the transfer of the. money was made. Yoimg admitted that he knew Leahy's fees were to be taken from the money. Disputes had arisen about Young's accounts, and Young had directed Leahy to invest the £114 in order to obtain interest. Giving evidence, accused said he had been practising as a solicitor in Auckland for 13 years. In 1930 the firm of Rope, Limited, which was W. R. Rope and himeelf, lent Young £25, because he was in difficulties. Witness acted on Young's behalf in the sale of his launch, and when the money came along witness took £25. Of this £15 was in settlement of costs and £10 was paid under Young's instructions to Rope, Limited, as a part refund. He arranged with Young, in May, 1931, to invest £125 at 7 per cent, until finality was reached with Young's creditors. Witness denied misappropriation of any money belonging to Young. After investigation, his explanation had been accepted by the Law Society. : His .JJonor: Do you say the explanation has been accepted ? —So I understand, your Honor, i Mr. Dickson: I understand the Auckland Law Society is satisfied. His Honor: It may be, but the Court of Appeal is having something to do with it.

. Accused said in every instance of a transfer of funds to Wheeler's account he had the permission of the persons concerned. Transfers Before Audit. Continuing , ihie evidence this morning, Leahy admitted, in answer \to the Crown Prosecutor, that on November 30 last, which was the last day before the audit of his trust account, Wheeler , ** account was £527 in debit. He made this up by the transfer of certain sums . from the account of Young and from other sources. '.Mr. Meredith: Did you have at your disposal £527, representing the amount you transferred to Wheeler's account? — No, there was no necessity to have that. His Honor questioned Leahy closely regarding the transfer of £147 from Wiheeler's account to his own. "When you transferred this £147 you must have transferred something that did not belong to you," said his Honor. Mr. Meredith said that at the time of the transfer of a certain amount of money, from a man named Duffy accused's trust account was only £2 in credit. "Never Kept My Own Books." Re-examined by Mr. Dickson, accused said his application in the Magistrate's Court for an adjournment in connection with Young's case was supported by the Auckland Law Society. "I never kept my own books," said accused, Mr. Dickson: That is exactly the .point I am coming to and which I want to emphasise now. Mr. Dickson then mode an application for an adjournment in order that the books might be investigated. This was refused by his Honor. "He has had ample time to prepare hie case,' said the judge. Task for the Jury. Summing up, hie Honor pointed out that an essential feature of the case was that a sum of £176 was handed over by Young to Leahy, with the definite instruction that it should be paid out pro rat* for the benefit of Young's creditors, who were pressing him. "What you have to decide," said his Honor, "is whether accused, after receiving this money as a trustee, acted honestly or dishonestly. If you decide that he was not guilty of ' criminal intent, and had merely got his accounts into a muddle, then it is your duty to acquit him. If, in your opinion, the Crown has not established its. case, Leahy is entitled to your verdict in his favour. But if, taking into account all the facts of the case* you decide that he ie guilty, then you must have no hesitation in finding a verdict accordingly." Dealing with the evidence in detail, his Honor mentioned that Young, in evidence, had denied having authorised Leahy to invest Young's money. Had this money been invested? There was no evidence that it had. When the regulations regarding the auditing of solicitors' trust accounts came into force, it was necessary that these accounts should be balanced. The evidence regarding Leahy's accounts was contrary to this. The jury returned after the luncheon adjournment with a verdict of guilty on the second count, that regarding £114. Accused was remanded until Monday for sentence.