FIDELITY FUND

Evening Star, Issue 21218, 27 September 1932, Page 6

FIDELITY FUND

ACTION AGAINST LAW SOCIETY DATE OF THEFT THE CRUX IH APPEAL CASE [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September 27. What appears to bo the first action brought against the New Zealand Law Society under tho provisions of the Law Practitioners’ (Solicitors’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund) Act, 1929, is an appeal before the Court of Appeal today. Nelson Ben Bishop, of Waiongona, near Inglewood, instituted proceedings in December against tho society, claiming out of the guarantee fund two sums of £I,OOO and £52 10s, allegedly misappropriated by Harold John Moulo Thomson, who formerly practised as a solicitor in Inglewood. The society had already met claims to the extent of over £5,000 in connection with Thomson’s defalcation, and did not dispute the facts alleged by Bishop, but contended that it was prohibited from meeting the claim out of the fund, for, by section 15 of the Act, the fund was limited to losses by theft committed after January 1, 1930 (the date of the coming into operation of the Act), and tho theft in question was committed in November, 1929. In his judgment, delivered in August, Mr Justice Blair, before whom the action was heard, found for the society as to the claim for £I,OOO and for Bishop as to tho £52 10s. The hearing to-day involves an appeal by Bishop as to the dismissal of his claim for £I,OOO and a crossappeal by the Law Society as to the amount for which Bishop was given judgment. Counsel for Bishop, said the judge in the court below, based his judgment on the fact that the sum of £I,OOO, which had been received from the State Advances Superintendent in 1929, had been then stolen, and that consequently there was no money left to be stolen in February, 1930, which was the date alleged by Bishop to bo the date of tho theft. Counsel said he accepted the finding of the judge as to tho theft in November, but contended that subsequently in February, 1930, Thomson obtained certain documents from Bishop by means of false pretences, and, having obtained tho documents, which represented £I,OOO, he stole them in order to cover up his previous theft. It was upon tho second theft that Bishop’s claim was based.