THE LUNDON CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 10109, 17 October 1917, Page 5

THE LUNDON CASE.

BARRISTER CITED. The case of John Raphael Lundon, barrister and solicitor, of Auckland, caina before the Appeal Court yesterday upon a motion by the Law Society of Auckland that, ho should answer certain allegations of professional misconduct. Tho application that a rule nisi should be made absol hie had been reserved for tho Court of

Appeal. It was alleged that mi or about January 27 Lundon made a gross overcharge of £IOO against a client. Joseph Fletcher, of Auckland, labourer, for his services in obtaining pre-payment from the National Rank of New Zealand, at Newton, of a sum of £SOO lodged by Fletcher with tho bank on fixed deposit. It was further alleged that Lundon persistently failed to account to Fletcher and his solicitors for moneys held by him in trust on behalf of Fletcher from November, 1915, to March 28, 1916, although repeatedly requested in writing to do so. Tho Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Dcnniston, Mr Justice Cooper, Mr Justice Chapman and Mr Justice Ilosking. Mr 11. F. Von Haast appeared for tho Law Society, and Dr. Fitchelt and Mr A. A. Blair for Lundon.

London, in course of cross-examination, said that he had been asked by the Law Society for a statement of the work dnno in connection with the Fletcher affair. He had not furnished the statement, because while ho was engaged in preparing it his health broke down. He. however, sent in an explanation to the Society in October, 1916 He accepted the £IOO foo from Fletcher on the understanding that which ho was obtaining for Fletcher from the bank. Fletcher had himself made various attempts to get the money without avail. On his first visit to the bank ho had met with a very cool reception, and was told that the bank wanted to have nothing to do with Fletcher. The manager was at that time aware that. the father-in-law of Fletcher was likely to bring an action against the latter for slander. He bad told Fletcher that in view of the fact that ho had been paid £IOO ho would attend to anything connected with the money received from the bank while any portion of it remained in his control, and he had carried out .that bargain. If ho had had to go to tho Supreme Court to obtain the money, ho could not have expected a penny more than tho £IOO, even if the action had cost more. Ho worked for Fletcher for ten solid months, and never charged him a penny. He took the money from Fletcher in tho form of a loan to prevent its being dissipated by Fletcher. To Hr. Fitchett, witness said that Fletcher stated to him that the money was not intended to be on fixed deposit, and was very positive about it. He thought it would probably bo necessary to sue tho bank, and if the matter had gone to tho Supreme Court, he would have had to brief counsel. Fletcher had paid witness £52 cheque, which was afterwards dishonoured, as a retainer fee for the Hander action which was expected to be brought by tho father-in-law In spite of the fact that tho cheque was dishonoured lie was prepared to carry on the defence in consideration of tho £IOO Fletcher had given him. He had treated tho £IOO as covering also his defence of on _a. charge of attempting to shoot In's father-in-law. When an action against him for tho recovery of money was pending, the solicitors for tho plaintiff filed a motion, which was heard before Mr Justice Cooper, for an order for the taking of accounts. His Honor dismissed tho motion, and expressed the opinion that the action appeared to he one for settlement between the parties. His promptlywroto to the other side, drawing attention to the remark and stating that witness was quito prepared to settle tho matter, and to refer any dispute about the £IOO to the taxing master, the registrar, or any practitioner in Auckland. Witness did not want tho money which he obtained from the bank tor anv purposes of Ids own, but only purposed to protect Fletcher from being robbed by certain persons who were notorious in tho Police Court at. Auckland. Ho placed tho money in his trust account. The case was adjourned until to-day.

TO DAY’S HEARING. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 17. Mr von Haast, for the Law Society, said London must have known before June 12 of Fletcher’s drinking habits and also of the threatened action of the father-in-law, and of Fletcher’s desire to got, money from the bank and dissipate it in a final carousal to prevent tho father-in-law getting it. Ho also knew the money was on fixed deposit and that the bank manager had allowed Fletcher to draw against it, but had declined to allow him tc operate further or recognise any order upon it. London ought to have gone to the manager and ascertained the facts before making a bargain to get the money from the bank for £IOO. A small fee would have been all that was necessary, and unless an action against tho bank followed, no action had to be forced. The difficulty was, as Lundon knew, to persuade tho bank to break the fixed deposit. and pay out. The money was obtained without trouble, and £IOO was an exorbitant charge. Mr von Haast proceeded to arguo that London's explanation a<s to this £IOO fee now given was different from that given to Mr Ostler and the Law Society.