SUSPENDED SOLICITOR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16672, 17 October 1917, Page 6

SUSPENDED SOLICITOR.

♦ CASE OP MR. J. R. LUNDON. COURT OF APPEAL HEARING. [BY telegraph.—press ASSOCIATION.] ; WELLINGTON. Tuesday. The Court of Appeal was occupied this afternoon in considering the case in which the New Zealand Law Society applied to have the name of John Raphael London struck off the rolls of barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. On March 12 the Chief Justice made an order nisi suspending Mr. Lundon from practice as a solicitor. On May 2 Mr. Justice Sim made the order absolute pend- ; ing the decision of the Court of Appeal. ! The matters of complaint against Lundon were as follow:—(1) The- on or about January 27, 1915, the said J. R. Lundon made a gross overcharge of £100 against his then client, Joseph Fletcher, of Auckland, for services in obtaining repayment from the National Bank of New Zealand at Newton of a sum of £500 lodged by Fletcher on fixed deposit ; (2) that .the said J. R. Lundm persistently failed to account to Fletcher or the solicitors then retained by Fletcher, for rvoneys held by him in trust for Fletcher from November, 1915, to March 28, 1916. although repeatedly requested in writing to do so. * At to-day's hearing Dr. Fitchett and Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for Mr. Lundon, and Mr. H. F. von Haast for the New Zealand Law Society. Mr. Lundon, under cross-examination, said he had been asked by the Law Society for a full statement of the work done in connection with the Fletcher affair. He had never furnished the statement, because while engaged in preparing it he had had a breakdown in health. Witness had accepted a £100 fee from Fletcher, on the understanding he would act for Fletcher without furthor payment while he held any of the £400 which he was obtaining for Fletcher from the Bank. Fletcher and witness had been both convinced that they Would have to go to law over the matter. Witness, on his first visit to the bank, met with a very cool reception, and was told that the bank wanted nothing to do with Fletcher, and that witness's clerk had got the bank's answer. The manager of the bank was at that time aware that the father-in-law of Fletcher was likely to bring an action against the latter for slander. No Further Fee. Asked by a member of the Bench why, on obtaining the money from the bank, he had not made a statement charging Fletcher the proper , fee, and crediting him with the balance, witness replied, " I told him thai in view of the fact that he had paid me £100 I would attend to anything connected with that money while any portion of it remained in my control, and I have carried out the bargain. " In the course of. further evidence, witness said that if he had had to go to the Supreme Court to obtain the money, he could not have expected a oenny more than the £100, even if the action cost' more. Witness took the money from Fletcher in the form of a loan to prevent its being dissipated by Fletcher. Mr. Von Haast: Why did you take up the attitude that you were not bound to account for the money? Witness: Because the money was lent to me, and when the demands were made Fletcher was away at Roto Roa Island. Were you not trustee for money!— That is a question for a lawyer. I was only an advocate. But you did, as a matter, of fact, though this was a loan, pay out a considerate sum of money.—Because I told him if he wanted money for a legitimate purpose I would not mind advancing it. I paid some of his expenses /when he would not do it himself. Examined by Dr. Fitchett, witness said that Fletcher averred to him that the money was not intended to be on fixed deposit. Witness thought it would probably bo necessary to sue the bank, and if the matter had gone to the Supreme Court witness would have had to brief counsel. Fletcher paid witness a £52 cheque, which was afterwards dishonoured, as a retainer fee for a slander action which he expected to be brought by his father-in-law. In spite of the fact that the cheque was dishonoured witness was prepared to carry on the defence in consideration of the £100 Fletcher had given him. Witness treated the £100 as covering also the defence of Fletcher on the charge of attempting to shoot his father-in-law. "targe Retaining Fee." Mr. Justice Denniston observed that £50 appeared to be a large retaining fee for an action which was etill in the air, and which actually was never brought. Dr Fitchett: Undoubtedly, Your Honor; but if the action had been brought, and to all appearances it was going to bo, Lundon was going to carry It through. I respectfully suggest that it was,a fee to cover the whole cost of the action. Proceeding, witness said that when an action against him for the recovery of the money wa# pending the solicitors for the plaintiff filed a motion which had been heard before Mr. Justice Cooper for an order for taking accounts. His donor had dismissed the motion and had 'expressed the opinion that the ac tion appeared to be one for settlement between the parties. Witness's solicitor promptly wrote to the other side drawing attention to the renark, and stating that they were quits feared to settle the matter nd refer any r'.vpute about .\ £1U) i v ■; taxingmaster, the upstr* , or ai.j practitioner in Auckland. Wi'noss did not want the :>v.:'"r «!,;,';, he had oi-i.-nnwl ,■->, the bank for ar.y purposes of ins own. He only proposed to protect Fletch'r from being robbed bv certain persons notorious in the Police Court at Auckland. Witness had placed the .loney in his trust accou. *- Mr. 'on Haast, in addre .«,; 'lie Court, said that in an explanation pi m to th«. Law Society, Mr. Lundon said ti. at at the time the bargain was i.iaJe with Fletcher the latter admitted that the money was on fixed deposit, and yet Mr. Lundon had told the Court that he charged the £100 because he thought an action would he necessary, and he would have to fee counsel. Mr. Justice Hosking: Does not the statement mean it was on the ground that it was a fixed deposit that the bank, rightly or wrongly, held the monev? Mr. Blair- It means Fletcher admitted the fart that the bank was holding monev as on fixed deposit, and the only thing to do was to upset the depos't to get it back. ° The Court then adjourned, the hearing being unfinished.