LAWYERS STUCK OFF

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 151, 23 March 1934, Page 18

LAWYERS STUCK OFF

Six Motions Considered SUPREME COURT DECISIONS A full bench of the Supreme Court <;-it veMerday to consider motions instituted by the New Zealand Law Society for striking off the rolls six New Zealand legal practitioners. In all but one of the cases consent had been tiled bv the practitioners, and an order was imide striking the names of each off the rolls. Mr. H. J. Thompson appeared on behalf of the Law Society. The practitioners were. John Cham pion Miller, solicitor, Inglewood; Harrihi Hales Hutchison, solicitor, Palmerston North: William Perry llollmgs, solicitor, Wellington; Douglas Barrington Kent, barrister and solicitor, Maipukurau; Albert Liondl Bailey barrister and solicitor, Napier; and Winter Hislop, barrister and solicitor. Napier. . , _ . When the motion against John Champion Miller was under consideration Mr. Thompson stated that over n period of some months the bankings "bv him had been short, and the short-

ace had not been accounted for. The total amount had been £52/19/6, and he had given no explanation, and did not deny the facts. There was nothing for the court from him at all. Tbe Taranaki Law Society had asked him to appear at a meeting, ami he had then been fo.und to have disappeared. He was in Auckland at the present time. Mr. P. E. Baldwin appeared for Harrild Hales Hutchison. The facts, be said, were not disputed, and his client had filed consent. The motion had been instituted following the discovery that defalcations had been made in two estates that he had been administering. Defendant had been concerned in an estate belonging to his father-in-law; in order to keep it solvent defendant made considerable advances. That was not an excuse, but it was a reason he gave for his later defalcations, which amounted to £ll2. He had not had the money for long. bu. had withdrawn it from the trust account and. paid it into his bank in his own name. The only explanation lie had given was that his father-in-law s estate owed him far more than tie amount. In the other defalcation lie i had misappropriated money from an estate and then had repaid it. In the remaining motions no cornl ment was made.