IMPROPER CONDUCT OF A SOLICITOR.

Evening Star, Issue 6914, 29 May 1885, Page 4

IMPROPER CONDUCT OF A SOLICITOR.

At the District Court at Invercargill yesterday Judge Ward gave judgment in the case of Hamilton v. Reade, in which, owing to the peculiar features the case presented, His Honor had previously decided to reserve judgment until this sitting. The claim was for Ll7l, the amount of a verdict given in the case of Hamilton v. Organ and Co. The money recovered was paid to Reade, as solicitor for the plaintiff, and by him handed to Mr M'Ardell, manager of the British and New Zealand Mortgage and Agency Company, on consideration that Mr M'Ardell would accept a bill of L2oß,!due by plaintiff to the National Mortgage Company. Hamilton asserted that the money was handed by Ueade to M'Ardell without his consent, and sued to recover tho amount. His Honor now gave judgment for defendant, without costs.

Mr Matthews stated that since the hearing of the case at the last sitting, M'Ardell's ldfl had matured, and defendant had issued ! a writ upon it in the Supreme Court. He had issued a writ for the full L2OB, and judgment was obtained against him. Mr | lleade said he had taken proceedings to ] protect himself in the event of the present ,-ction going against him. He did not intend to proceed further on the bill. His Honor said Reade had already proceeded on the bill. He had sworn in the witness-box that he had paid money over to M'Ardell to release the bill, and yet had issued a writ and obtained judgment for the amount it represented. Had the Court Known of the circumstances judgment would have been against defendant. Unfortunately, the judgment could not now be reversed. Mr Finn said it was a matter which could be considered by the Law Society. Mr Reade gave his assurance that he had not the slightest intention of proceeding further with the action. His Honor said Reade had no right to proceed on the bill. Not only should the matter he considered by the Law Society, but it should also be brought before a Judge of the Supreme Court. Mr Reade: I am quite willing, your Honor, that my conduct should be investigated by a Judge of the Supreme Court. His Honor: It probably will bo, Mr Reade. It is fortunate for you that judgment was given before I knew of this, or it would have been against you, Mr Matthews could consider whether he would appeal. The evidence taken at the hearing, pint, the defendant's admission that he had taken action on the bill, would justify a verdict for the plaintiff. i