ADMISSION TO THE BAR

Evening Post, Volume C, Issue 23, 27 July 1920, Page 7

ADMISSION TO THE BAR

REHEARING AN APPLICATION.

A renewed application for admission 'as a solicitor occupied the attention of a full sitting of the Supreme Court today. There were on the Bench the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Herdman. The applicant was John Edward Barltrop, of Feilding, and on his behalf the motion ,was moved by Mr. D. M. Findlay, The Law Society, which had opposed the application some, years ago, was not represented, a fact which the Chief Justice commented upon at the commencement of the hearing.

In support of his motion, Mr. Findlay pointed out that the application had been made over four years ago, but was then successfully opposed by the Law Society. Concerning the present attitude of the Law Society, Mr. Findlay had been advised in reply to a communication that the society was of opinion that the lengthy period which had elapsed since the application was made was sufficient, punishment for the unprofessional'act charged against the appellant. The society therefore would not oppose the application. Mr. Fdndlay recalled the circumstances relating to the refusal of the previous application, v From the Bench it was pointed- out that the applicant had been guilty of serious misconduct. He had taken hia employer's money, and had used it for his own purposes. There were eight charges against him, one of which was receiving truet money from a client of his late employer and paying same into his own account.

To this Mr. Findlay explained- that there had been no criminal intent, and no concealment on the part of the applicant. After the death of his employer the course he had taken was probably quite irregular, but in adopting it there was a motive of a desire- to take the shortest way of getting the business together. The moneys had been paid into his account after the death of his employer, and, with the exception of £200, which he claimed was put in his own trust, the whole of the trust moneys had been drawn out again within a short period. Mr. Findlay pointed out that there was etrong ovidence of the applicant c general good character. After consideration, the Court decided that the application should be adjourned pending investigation' by the Law Society as to the applicant's character, nature of bu&iness, etc. There was nothing before the Court except documents which were produced at the proceedings in 1815. On that occasion the applicant, in having made no explanation of the ohsrs'oa,-; allowed jud«in«nt to go by dsfault against him.