THE LUSK CASE.

Evening Post, Volume XLVII, Issue 82, 7 April 1894, Page 4

THE LUSK CASE.

♦ SCATHING REMARKS FROM THE BENCH.

In the Supremo Court at Sydney on B2nd March— before the Chief Justice— Mr Justice Windeyer, and Mr. Justice Stephen, the case re Hugh H. Lusk, ex parle S. J Hookley, came up for decision. Thiß was the matter in which the respondent, Hugh H Luok, a barrister of the Court, had been culled upon to answer certain statements mado in an affidavit filed by Samuel Joseph Hookley, and to show cause why he should not be struck off the roll of barristers. The details of the case were publishod iccently, but it may be mentioned that 011 the 13th instant respondent appeared before the Court, .and read a long affidavit in rep y to Hockley, in which he stated that £50 was lodged temporarily with him, and that the balance of .£l5O had been appropriated, not for anything in connection with his own services, but in the conduct of tho suit. The Court, seeng the state in which tho suit was, i-aid it could not understand how such a sum al money could have been spent, and upon being questioned in referenco to the matter Mr Lußk declined to furnish an answer except by affidavit, apd at his request a postponement was granted until the 15th instant. On that date Mr. Lusk wrote to the Chief Juatioe asking for a further postponement on the ground that he was ill, and was unable to complete his affidavit. The further hearing was thereupon adjourned fora week, and upon the matter being again called, the respondent did not appear. An affidavit had been filed by Samuel Joseph Hockloy, in answer to that of respondent, in which lie (Hookloy) said that Mr. Lusk never told him at any time that he had expended tha whole of the JE2OO. On ihe oontrary, Mr. Lusk told him that he had paid Mr. Blundeu -250, and that he was entitled to retain .£3O for his own services. Mr. Lusk afterwards told him that he had only paid Mr. Blunden .£3O, but that he had promised him an additional w£2o. Ho never knew Mr. Lnsk before he went to him about the case ; he was no friend of hia (Mr. Hockley), and he never asked him to undertake the case as a friend. He understood that he was a barrister — not knowing the difference between a barrister and solicitor— and 'jo employed him bb such, assuming that ho would be compensated out of the money handed to him. Mr. Butterworth Baid he did not know whether tho Court would like to hear anything from Mr. Blunden, who was present in Court to give evidence if their Honours so dosired. The Chief Justice said he did not think suoh a course was necessary, as no doubt Mr. Blunden had acted in a strictly proper und professional manner all through tho matter. Under the circumstances of the case the Court had no course to take except one. Mr. Lusk had stated that he had spent the money in the oonduot of the suit, but the Court regretted to find itself in the position of utterly disbelieving that statement. Nothing whatever, so far as the Court knew, had been done by Mr. Lusk except drawing up and filing the statement of claim and replication. He supplied Mr. Blnuden with 1110 sum of .£3O, which the Court might assume was applied to the purposes of the ,-uit, and beyond that sum the Court had leceived no account wbatovor of how the balance of the .£2OO had been expended ; so that they had a barrister acting as a tolioitor, and receiving as a solicitor the sum of JS2OO paid to him by his olient for the purposes of the case, and he gave no acoount of the application of the money beyond the snm of JE3O He left his olient deserted at a most critical moment, and applied .£l7O as far as tho Court could Bee to his own purposes. He not only acted as a solioitor, but a dishonest solicitor, and the only thing that the Court could do was to Htrike Mr. Lnsk's name off the roll of barristers, and iv fact to disbar him. Mr. Lusk was admitted to the Bar of that oolony on the 20th June, 1867 ; but he did not practise al that Bar for many years after that. He believed he went to New Zealand, and after residing there for some years he returned to Sydney and praoti3ed there. This was the first time in New South Wales that a barrister had been removed from the roll of this Court. Although sitting there as Jndges, the members of the Court remained members of the Bar, and he need not say that it was a very painful duty to have to remove a barrister from the roll on the ground of dishonesty and falsehood. The Court directed that Mr. Lusk'a name should bo removed from the roll of barristers.