APPEAL COURT.

Mataura Ensign, 11 December 1917, Page 7

APPEAL COURT.

CASE OF J. R. LUNDON. STRUCK OFF'THE ROLL. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 10. The Appeal Court, giving judgment in the application to strike J. R. Lundon off the roll of solicitors, considered that Lundon must have known that Fletcher's condition was not normal when he agreed to pay £IOO for obtaining the release of the money from the bank. He should have acquainted Fletcher with the fact- that the bank would not release the money which was, on fixed deposit till the expiry of the term. The court was satisfied that Lundon offended by not making this known, also that the charge of £IOO was notiustihed by the service rendered. The court was forced to the conclusion that no reliance could be placed on-Lundon's statement. That an agreement existed whereby the payment of £IOO was to cover all work connected with obtaining the deposit trom the bank for Fletr-her. His conduct was such that the court must make absolute a rule nisi striking Lundohlvoff the roll of barristers, and .solicitors with costs'to the said society on the middle scale as from a distance: W. G. BEARD, OF MASTERTON. WELLINGTON, Doc. 10. The Appeal Court gave judgment in the application to stride W. G. Beard, of 'Atasterton, off the roll on the ground of professional misconduct alleged in. dealings with Rangi Kerehama, and that knowing the latter's improvident nature he had not properly advised him. The court found that the charges were established. It considered, though he coulu not be charged with not having made reparation, it was clear that he had profited at the expense of his client. The whole record of legal work done showed that Rangi's interests were not considered but that the interests of Chennels and Heard occupied the foremost place so that the land owned by Rangi could be acquired by the relatives of Beard and Chennels. Not until after the property was dealt with and leases arranged without reference to Rangi's interest was the latter advised to get independent legal advice to see that all was in order. The court must conclude that Heard failed in his duty. It recognised that he had been in ill-health and had made reparation, but must exercise its disciplinary power and ordered his suspension for three years, with costs on the highest sca|p, the suspension to operate from the end of February next.