STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1152, 30 March 1894, Page 35

STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS.

Sydney, March 22. For the first time in the history of the colony a barrister lias been struck off the rolls." Mr 11. JI. Lusk, formerly of New Zealand, is the offender, and it is alleged that he had not paid over a client's, money.

Mr Lusk, who was a well-known solicitor in Auckland, and who was some years ago a member of the House of Representatives before he went to Sidney, and was called to the Bar there, is the subject of the above message. On March 12th lie was before the Supreme Court to show cause why ho should not be struck off the rolls. As the case had excited some interest in Sydney, the Cctirt was densely crowded. The affidavit of his accuser alleged that Mr Lusk had received J 2200 in June, lbt)2, to bring a certain case to a liearing, guaranteeing that it would cost no more, that the case was stopped for want of means to make further payments to the solicitor engaged, Mr Lusk's affidavit in reply declared that the money had been expended in furthering the suit; that the expenses had proved larger than he estimated at the time he guaranteed the .£2OO would be sufficient; that certain losses which had crippled him, and his failure to get certain moneys he relied on, had prevented him from making good his guarantee by paying the solicitor's costs out of his own pocket ; that he had taken xip the case out of a strong belief that the plaintiff had been treated unjustly; that he had spent a great deal of time and trouble on the case, and had charged nothing for it. The Chief Justice and the two Judges who sat with him asked Mr Lusk what he had done with the .£2OO. Mr Lusk declined to explain except by affidavit. The judges wanted him to explain at once, one of them saying, " we don't like barristers to do such things ;" and another remarking that the plaintiff would probably lose his suit in consequence of what had happened. It transpired, in consequence of questions from the Bench, that the solicitor had not had quite <£so of the .£2OO. Mr Lusk declared that the balance had been spent in forwarding the suit, but nothing the Judges could say could induce him to go further than promise to give all particulars by affidavit. After some argument the Court adjourned till the 15th to enable Mr Lusk to prepare a fidl affidavit in reply, the Chief Justice saying, " You can answer as fully as you think fit. You can't make it too full." These particulars we get from a Sydney paper to hand by the Hauroto. What has happened since they were printed is clear enough. Mr Lusk made his affidavit at the appointed time, the Court took time to consider, and after consideration the Court has struck him off the rolls. The probability, we hope, is that his offence was not wrongful appropriation of the money, but unprofessional conduct in acting as a solicitor, the professions of barrister and solicitor not being amalgamated in Sydney. Mr Lusk is the first barrister (according to the cable message) who has ever been struck off the rolls in New South Wales. A solicitor named Williamson was struck off by the same Judges on the 13th, at the same sitting at which Mr Lusk was first before the Court. In giving judgment the Chief Justice said that several solicitors had i-ecently been dealt with for a similar offence. But Mr Lusk is the first barrister who has met with that punishment. It is a sad end to a legal career which, after considerable energy and ability on the part of Mr Lusk, promised at one time to be both lucrative and brilliant.