MR. LUNDON'S SUSPENSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16673, 18 October 1917, Page 4

MR. LUNDON'S SUSPENSION.

I CASE BEFORE APPEAL COURT. 1 , ALLEGED EXORBITANT FEE. [BY TELEGIIAPn— CORRESPONDENT.] j WELLINGTON, Wednesday. | The Court of Appeal was again occupied ' to-day in considering the case in which the New Zealand Law Society applied to have the name of iTohn Raphael Lundon struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The Chief Justice said ho desired to have a statement made by Mr. Lundon on the previous day cleared up. Ho understood Mr. Lundon to have said ho' had paid the money he had received from ! the bank into a trust account. Was that' so? ! Mr. Lundon (rave evidence that ho had simply a general trust account. He did not keep a separate account for each client. His private account was in the National Bank, and the trust account in! the Bank of New Zealand. He had agreed , to pay interest to Fletcher on the money \ at the rate of 5£ per cent., because he was \ not going to have it said that Fletcher I Buffered by his taking charge of the i money. Witness simply wanted to protect I Fletcher against himself, because Fletcher's - habits made it inadvisable to trust him j with the money. The trust account was j subject lo audit, and witness had a clearance up to May, the month in which ho was suspended, and the account was continuously kept in credit up to an amount equal to that held for Fletcher. The trust account and passbook were produced, showing that the money had been paid into that account. Mr. Lundon's Defence. Mr. von Haast: Why could yon not have deposited this money in your own name bearinc interest? Witness: And what would I have been | open to then ? To the very attack that j is being made upon me now. j Mr. von Haast: Why shoulclj'ou pay 511 per cent, interest when the bank "was only allowing 3j per cent? Witness: I wished to prevent anyone from casting aspersions on me. In the settlement I paid the interest two months before it was due. When the money was finally paid over to Fletcher it was very soon gone, and now the wife is starving. , I have a letter in my pocket tow from I her begging for a pair of boots. ; Dr. Fitchett asked witness whether 1 Fletcher ever gave him any instructions as to how the interest on the £350 was Ito be applied, and Mr. Lundon's reply ; was that Fletcher had instructed him in writing that it was to bo applied to the maintenance of tho wife. It had been so applied. Mr. von Haast said that it was clear that Mr. Lundon knew Fletcher was unreliable, and that it was very likely that if the bank manager said that the money was on fixed deposit and Fletcher that it was on current account, that the manager was in the right. Mr. Lundo» : however, made a bargain with Fletcher for £100 when the proper course was to see whether the money was on fixed deposit or not, If it was on deposit for a fixed term then no action could have been taken by Fletcher against the bank, and the only I thing that Lundon could do was tc | ask the bank to break tho deposit oi make an advance That was a mattei for the charging of a small fee. If the money was simply on current account it was, of course, easily obtainable. Oaae for Law Society.

, Mr. von Haast traversed the explana- . tions given by Mr. Lundon of the bargain for the £100, and submitted they were an ! attempt to build up an explanation after ' Mr. Lundon realised the way in which the transaction was regarded by other 1 members of the profession. The (Joint ■ had to consider in this case whether Mr, 1 Lundon had not taken advantage of the i necessities of Fletcher's position, in order i to make an unconscionable bargain. The Court had also to consider Lundon's persistent failure to account for moneys till Fletcher brought an action. Mr. • Lundon had taken up the attitude that ' i the money was a loan, and not a trust, 1 though he said, in his explanation to the > i Law Society, that it was a trust, and II that it was held for the purpose of keepi ! ing it out of reach of Hotelier's father- ! i in-law. . Dr. Fitchett submitted that the £100 > affair was not a charge or an agreement, . but a sort of bet. Up to the time it was paid, no question of a charge could pos- ) sibly arise, and if any such question rose, . it rose at the moment of payment. At the time the money was paid, Mr, Lundon recognised that the services performed would be overpaid and so he said ho " would cancel a £50 cheque of Fletcher's to 5 i him, and in addition would do any profest, eional work that Fletcher required to bo . ' done while he (Mr. Lundon) held any part - of the money. Counsel hoped that tho f Court would not take so narrow a view j as to say forthwith that with the payment I of the cash into Mr. Lundon's hands, an 1 overcharge was made. Mr. Lundon's 1 failure to furnish accounts was due to the . fact that he treated the £350 as a loan placed with him for 18 months at the rate ! of 5i per cent. Everything that had been done had unquestionably been to Fletcher's ' benefit. ' Mr. Blair alfio addressed the Court and s his argument was not concluded when tho 0 case was adjourned until tomorrow. s 0 . —