LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13723, 13 April 1908, Page 6

LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT.

AN IMPOR TANT QUESTION. [|»Y TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] W ELL I TON, Sat urd ay. An uncommon application, involving an important question in law offices, was made before Mr. Justice Cooper to-day, when Mr. Fell applied, under the Law Practitioners Amendment Act, 1898, to have Mr. P. Putnam admitted as a barrister of the Supreme Court. The Act, it was stated, entitled a solicitor who had practised for five years, or who had been managing clerk to a solicitor for five years, to be admitted as a barrister. The point at issue was whether the Act was intended to apply to a case where a person was managing clerk to a member of a firm, and not the whole firm. Mr. Fell contended that Mr. Putnam came within the Act, and was entitled to be admitted, because he was managing clerk to Mr. E. D. Bell, of the firm of Messrs. Bell, Gully, Bell, and Mye •, and had charge of all the work done by him. The work, lie said, was not departmental work, but general, and the experience gained would be just as much as if Mr. Putnam had been managing clerk to a single solicitor. To make the Act workable and fair, Mr. Putnam should be admitted, otherwise the Act would be practically restricted to managing clerks of single firms.

His Honor expressed the opinion that the managing clerk of a firm was a gentleman who represented the firm when the members of it were away, and authority over all the other clerks. The question was an important one, affecting all large firms throughout New Zetland. That- was why he did not deal with the matter in chainbero. The applicant was given an opportunity to file affidavits showing thy class of work he did and the responsibilities he had, and in the meantime His Honor reserved judgment.