Counsel’s Addresses In Trial Of Solicitor

Press, Volume C, Issue 29643, 13 October 1961, Page 15

Counsel’s Addresses In Trial Of Solicitor

(Neto Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, October 17. The actions of his client, Robert William Tennent, were reprehensible, but they were not criminal, submitted Mr A. L. Tompkins, Q.C., in the Supreme Court at Auckland today. Mr Tompkins, with Mr R. P. Smellie is appearing for Tennent, a former Auckland solicitor, who is on trial before Mr Justice Gresson and a jury on seven charges of theft by misappropriation. The sum of £12,965 8s 6d is involved in the charges, which are alleged to concern money held for seven of Tennent’s former clients. The case for the Crown is conducted by Mr G. D. Speight and Mr R. L. McLaren. Arthur Eric John Anderson, an accountant, of Wellington, secretary of the New Zealand Law Society, gave detailed evidence of the claims made against Tennent and for which reimbursements were made by the society. In all, said Anderson, the society paid out £12,094 in respect of claims although there were additional expenses incurred. The society now held the mortgages of clients where mortgages were available, but also stood to lose some of the money. Robert Donald Cox, a public accountant, said that on instructions from the Law

Society he investigated Tennent’s trust account in February, 1959. He found Tennent extremely intelligent and Tennent knew what he was doing with the books. Witness then pointed out faulty entries he had found in each of the accounts subject to the charges against Tennent. He said that in his discussions with Tennent he asked him if he had authority to make transactions found in the journal. Tennent said he either had, or could get, the funds. Witness told Tennent it would have been better if he had obtained the authority from clients before making the transactions. In his final address Mr Speight said the jury had to find what Tennent’s intentions were when he dealt with the money in the way he did. “By now, you may well be satisfied that the clients gave Tennent the money for certain purposes and he put it to other purposes,” he said. “It is certain those clients were shocked when they found out how their money had been used.” It had to be proved that Tennent used the money fraudulently, said Mr Speight. Correspondence alone proved that. In the Crown’s submission it was no answer

to say that Tennent had hoped to patch up the accounts, or later rely upon the Law Society to repair the damage that had been done. “If you think this was muddlement on Tennent’s part,” said Mr Speight “then the Crown has failed to prove its case.” Mr Tompkins did not call evidence. In his address to the jury he said the case was not one of embezzlement or theft, as those charges were usually understood, but of a solicitor using trust funds to help clients temporarily when he knew there were permanent funds available. Tennent’s actions were neither dishonest nor fraudulent because there was no intention to harm any of his clients. Mr Tompkins said he did not excuse Tennent’s actions. They were wrong, but they were not criminal. "Tennent did not get one penny either in interest or in capital as a result of these transactions,’’ said Mr Tompkins. Had Tennent not been suspended without warning, he could have obtained permanent security for his clients without recourse to the Law Society. Careful records of the transactions had been kept. They were not indicative of fraud. There was no attempt to “rig the books.” Tennent was just a young man who did not have the necessary experience to run a law office, said Mr Tompkins. His Honour will sum up tomorrow morning.