“UNHOLY TRINITY”

Greymouth Evening Star, 30 November 1929, Page 5

“UNHOLY TRINITY”

NEW ZEALANDER’S P.N. ' / (Special to, "Star.") AUCKLAND, ‘‘Here we* have this unholy trinity— McLaughlin struck off the. rolls—(a solicitor in bankruptcy), Flood, whose business was going to pieces , and Wawn, who was in liquidation, and they lend each other large sums of money on Gear’s promissory note.” This was submitted to Mr Justice Smith in the Supreme Court this morning, by Mr E. Parry, who appeared for the defendant in the case in which Edward Joseph Flood, a Sydney accountant, is claiming £775, alleged to be due on a promissory note from James Ernest Gear of Auckland. “The whole business savours of gambling transactions, but that is not proved 1 ,” said his Honor, during the morning;

Plaintiff claimed 2 to be the holder of a promissory note dated January 20, 1923. It was alleged that the defendant, Gear, undertook in the note to pay John McLaughlin and son of SydHey, solicitors, £775 on May 23, 1923. It was claimed that McLaughlin and son endorsed the note to V. A. Wawn, and that Wawn endorsed it to the plaintiff. “While in Sydney, Gear went through a considerable portion of his large New Zealand estate,” said Mr Parry for the defence. “The Wellington firm which was acting as Gear’s trustee kept him on a short allowance, and it was to take his estate out of this firm’s hands that Gear plantie J to return to New Zealand with McLaughling. Gear trusted this man as his friend, and legal adviser. McLaughlin gave no testimony for either side in Sydney because it was understood he was coming <to the Dominion to give his evidence. Coun--sel said he would apply if necessary for an adjournment to obtain McLaughlin’s evidence. His testimony would “blow off” plaintiff’s case entirely. Referring to the fact that McLaughlin had not given evidence, his Honor said that he must say it looked, like a case of manoeuvre.

“McLaughlin did not give evidence on his counsel’s advice,” said Mr Rogerson, who represents Floqd. Mr Parry: McLaughlin is far too sharp a man to let counsel know what he is doing. Mr Parry said the evidence showed that Flood handed back the P.N. to McLaughlin a' few weeks after receiving it. He did not see the,document again for five years. During that time McLaughlin had been struck off the roll, for dishonesty and fraud, and he had gone bankrupt at the same time. Flood admitted that the P.N. which was being held by a dishonest solicitor was his only security for advancing hundreds of pounds. The present action was _ instigated by McLaughlin and is being backed by a Christchurch man, whom Flood did not know. The whole evidence tends to show that not interested in the proceedings. McLaughlin was the only interested party. Mr Parry said there had been betting transactions between Flood, McLaughlin and others, and that every person, who cashed a cheque was either a bookmaker or a hotelkeeper. It had also been admitted by^Flood that he had made advances to McLaughlin before making the note, and he had claimed z on McLaughlin’s estate m bankruptcy. Plaintiff Had to prove that he had taken the note before it was overdue and there was evidence to show he had not done so. His Honor: Flood failed for £70.000 and his assets were £60,000. The hearing is unfinished.