SOLICITORS' AFFAIRS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20991, 30 September 1931, Page 10

SOLICITORS' AFFAIRS.

CLIENTS' MONEY LOST. NAPIER EARTHQUAKE SEQUEL. COURT'S STERN REPRIMAND. [BY TEJ-EfiRAPII —rRESS ASSOCIATION.] ELLINGTON, Tuesday. Tlio adjourned hearing of ib© charges brought by (lie New Zealand Law Society against Walter Hislop, barrister and solicitor, of Napier (Mr. Hav). came before tli(i Court of Appeal at Wellington I o-day. The case had been adjourned since July last to enable the practitioner to place further facts before the Court. In restating the facts Mr. Free, counsel for the Law Society, said that at the end of last year Ilislop received a cheque in repayment of a mortgage in favour of a lady client. He banked the cheque on December 17, then having only a small balance: in his trust account. Although further amounts were paid to him on behalf of clients no further banking was done until after the earthquake, which on February 3 destroyed his office and with it the strongroom and its contents. Hislop's credit at the bank then was found to have been substantially reduced, although tlxe amount of the mortgage money had not been paid over to the lady client,. Hislop's explanation was that money had been paid out of his trust account against money which he had received on behalf of clients, but which he had been 100 busy to bank. At the time of the earthquake, Hislop alleged, he had £6OO odd in his strongroom and that had been lost in the subsequent fire. Since tho last adjournment Hislop appeared to have substantiated his statement that money had been received in respect of which payments had been made so that the position was different from when the case was last before the Court. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, in delivering judgment, said it was particularly fortunate for Hislop that tho Court previously had suggested the adjournment to enable him to bring further particulars before it. The practitioner had been guilty of very grave negligence. The money lost in the earthquake belonged to clients and his duty was to have banked it promptly. He had not only been guilty of carelessness, but had committed a. breach of the Law Practitioners' Act. As Hislop had been virtually suspended from practice since February he would be sternly reprimanded by the Court and ordered to pay the Law Society's costs.