CHARGES AGAINST PROMINENT LAWYERS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 118, 22 May 1925, Page 2

CHARGES AGAINST PROMINENT LAWYERS

DECISION IN DOUGALL'S CASE . THIS MORNING.

(BI TEIEGaWH.—TRESS ASSOCIATION.) CHRISTCHURCH, 21st May. The hearing was continued before Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court to-day of the charge under the Stamp Duty Act brought against Frederick Wilding, K.C., and Leslie Arthur Dougall, well-known members of Christchurch legal firms. Mr. M. J. Gresson, who. appeared for Dougall, in opening his defence, said he proposed. before going into, the facts to make a few observations both upon the law and facts under section 16, the section under which the charge was laid. The whole section was governed by the words " every" person who with intent- -to • defraud." Therefore the onus was upon the Crown of proving guilty knowledge in connection with these transactions. The offence that Dougall was charged with was that with intent to defraud, being employed, or concerned in, or about the preparation of any instrument neglected, or omitted, fully and truly to set forth all the facts and circumstances. What they had to show under the section were the facts and circumstances affecting tho liability of the instrument to duty. All they, had to' do was fully and truly to set forth all the facts and circumstances that affected the liability of that particular transfer to duty, and they had nothing to do with the liability of any intermediate agreement to duty. It was submitted that there was no duty cast upon the solicitor preparing a transfer to disclose any intermediate transactions, unless the purchaser derived a title' from ■ those transactions. No duty, said Mr. Gresson, rested upon a solicitor to act as a; watch dog for the Stamp Department, or to disclose the intermediate agreements unless such' agreements were necessary to complete his client's title. Tho defence said it was not necessary to recite the agreements that had been referred to, because they did not give a title, and the defendants' clients could not derive a title through thenu The solicitors were informed, and accepted the information as a fact that the Stevens and Aiming contracts had been rescinded. He submitted that any solicitor.who was acting for a purchaser was justified in accepting a statement by the vendor's solicitors as to the non-existence of any intermediate agreements. It must be apparent that neither Leslie Dougall nor his client, Campbell, could have the slightest interest or the slightest possible motive in misleading the Department on. the question of stamp duty. Under no possible circumstances could Campbell be liable for any intermediate transactions, and therefore the Court was faced by the fact of an absolutely motiveless offence. . •■ The evidence for the defence would show that at-the time of the interview ill which Leslie Dougall, Aiming, and Grainger participated not one of the agreements had been produced to a single solicitor connected with the transaction. As iar as one could sec, Mr. H. H. Cook's office seemed to have been the repository of the unstamped contracts, and whenever an unstamped contract was wanted it came from Cook's office. It -was at an interview in Dougall's office" that if was found that the Armings had no agreement, and it was in consequence of that that tho meeting broke up. Thus it was on 11th'August that Leslie Dougall was told that the Armings had no title. At the present- inquiry it was suggested that the Armings had a. title by three different methods. The first was in some round about ■ way • through Bowron's letter o£ sth April; it was suggested that this in some way conferred a title on the Armings. The second was the agreement between Boag and the Armings, and the third was a document spoken to by Stevens alone, which Stevens said he had signed .but which nobody else had seen. So far as the letter of sth April was concerned, it was not till just before the inquiry that Bowron remembered its existence. The Boag-Anning agreement appeared by summons from Morrison to Cook, and it was clearly. known to the solicitors in. tho transaction. Wilding, sen., would say that he advised that the" Bdwrons were' entitled to ignore the agreements with Stevens and with the Armings, and could sell to whom they liked. He did not know of these intermediate agreements. He had only the facts as given to him by. Grainger: Leslie Dougall had seen Wilding, and had been advised that the transaction could go through. Leslie Dougall relied upon his father as well as upon Wilding. How could it be said that young Leslie had any intent to defraud.? Were solicitors to be prosecuted every time they gave a wrong opinion? What kind of reception would young Leslie Dougall have met with at the interview between Wilding and his father if he had said, "I think you are both wrong?" Young Leslie Dougall was entitled to rely upon Wilding and his father where fraud was the" essence of the, contract. Evidence was given on the lines of counsel's address, and after legal argument had been heard the Magistrate said he would give his decision in Dougall's case in the morning. Wilding's case will be taken to-morrow.