THE LONDON CASE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLII, Issue 10110, 18 October 1917, Page 5

THE LONDON CASE.

(Pkr Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Oct, 17. In the Lundon case, Dr. Fitchett objected to tho matter of the loan being gone into. Tho Court said it could be discussed, but it was not a matter for disciplinary jurisdiction. Lundon's trust account pass book was produced, showing that tho money > received from Fletcher had been paid into that account. Dr. Fitchett, on behalf of Lundon, said he did not intend to make a microscopic analysis of the affadavit. There were two charges against Lundon, (1) an overcharge of £IOO, and (2) failure to account. He submitted on tho first charge that the transaction was not a charge, but a bet that Lundon would not get the money from the bank. When payment was made, Lundon recognised ho had not done work for the £IOO, and made ain offer *o <fa otlifcrr work. lie submitted authorities which showed that an overcharge, no matter how exorbitant, was not a ground, in the absence of fraud, for the exercise of tho Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. As to the second charge of not furnishing accounts, the answer was, ho submitted, that Lundon treated the transaction as a loan, and there was no obligation to account. He contended that even-thing Lundon had done hud been all for Fletcher's benefit, and that that was the conclusive < answer to the charge of professional misconduct, Mr Blair supported his leader's contentions, and argument had not concluded when the Court rose. Judgment was reserved.