W. G. SOMERVILLE.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1511, 6 August 1912, Page 8

W. G. SOMERVILLE.

WHY HE WAS SUSPENDED. Suspension from practice for thTec years was the penalty imposoil on William Georgo Somerville. The Allegations. It was alleged against Somerville that, while acting as solicitor to one Mrs; Catherine Butlor, of Wellington, a widow, lie received ivom Mrs. Butler .£I7OO, for the purpose ot investing it for Mrs. Butler upon a first mortgage to be procured by .Sonierville for Mrs. Butler from 'lliomris Andrew* Hemming Fifcld and I-lonry Montague Field as mortgagors of certain lands ut Island Bay, Wellington, and 01" paying and applying tli-o money to or for the use of the mortgagors -upon their completing the mortgage. It was said to have been the duty of Somerville to have applied the .£I7OO in paying ofi prior mortgages, and to have obtained o first mortgage of the land to Mrs. Butler; securing to leer the repayment of the ■X'l7oo together with interest, thereon, li was declared that Somerville falsely represented to Mrs. Butler that he had discharged all outstanding claims upon the land, and had procured the Messrs, Field to bo registered proprietors of th< land free from all encumbrances, and had obtained from them and had iu his possession for Mrs. Butler a valid and registrable mortgage to her of the land, whereasi in fact Somerville had fraudulently converted the XI7OO to his owr use, or had otherwise fraudulently applied the same to some other purpose. It was further alleged against Somerville that on May IG, 1908, he received .£llß 12s. lOd. from Percy Hudson, on terms requiring him to account for or paj the money to an association or syndicate comprising John Hall Flockton and others, and that he wrongfully appropriated .£132 15s. id. of the money to his own use. Trust Funds Depleted. In the judgment of the Court, delivered by the Chief justice, his Honour -referred at length to the affidavits that had been filed, and to the absence of any evidence but Somei-viljo's on the point of the agreement of Mrs. Butler to certain arrangements set out in the mortgage letter. "It is clear," said his Honour, "from, his trust account at the bank before this letter of mortgage, which he says lie gave, was written, he had depleted his trust funds, so that there was not in liis trust account in the bank the amount that should have been there if part of this .£I7OO, beyond even the amount paid to the vendors, had not Ijeen used by him for his own purposes. It was clearly liis (lutv as a solicitor not to have applied trust funds which belonged to his client to his owii purposes without her consent. It may be true that if she had assented to it, and it was clearly proved that she had assented to the arrangement, that is referred to by liirn as the letter of mortgage, that might have been a sufficient homologation to his action, but in order to get the benefit of such an homo, logation, clear and positive evidence niusl bo° produced. There is no such evidence, On the contrary, the cvidenqe of Butlei and the evidenco of Wj'lie tend to show that no such agreement as Somervilk alleges-was made ou-June 1, and that ht did misapply Mrs. Butler's money. II appears to us that ivnat took place afterwards is not of any consequence. Efforts to Redeem the Position, There is no doubt that- he did what he could to redeem the position, and to inakt Mrs. Butler secure. Circumstances were however, against him. The value of lain suffered a great fall. Ho considered, ani his friends considered, that ho was ill i strong financial position, but only becausi he was valuing the interests he had ii land at . a figure that with the fallinj market could not be obtained. The ve suit was that he was forced into tin Bankruptcy Court, and the outlook at pre sent is that Mrs. Butler will not be abli to obtain all her ,£I7OO. His conduct to wards the Messrs. Field was also a gravi breach of duty. They, even if his stor; of the letter agreement were true, re mained liable to Mrs. Butler for ,£liflO and the first mortgage on'their land which was to be paid off out of the ,£I7OO was not paid off. Wo are, therefore, o opinion that this is a case in which tlx Court must hold that Somerville hasdieei guilty of misconduct, and that (htyWiir must invoke the punitary provisions o the I.aw Practitioners Act, IDnS. He i suspended from practice for throe years anil ordered to pav costs 35 guineas am di-liui-sements. Seeing this, the I.ay Society, perhaps, .may not consider i necessary lo proceed with the- seeoiu charge. " Somerville is allowed one montl in which to close his office."