SOLICITORS IN TROUBLE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8192, 6 August 1912, Page 1

SOLICITORS IN TROUBLE

ACTION BY LAW SOCIETY SUSPENSIONS FROM PRACTICE. The Appeal Court yesterday gave ils decision on the application of the Wellington Law Society to make absolute tlia rule un,i striking two solicitors off the roils of barristers and solicitors of the Supremo Court. It suspended from practice for three years William George Somerville, of Danncvirko, late of Wellington, and John Gwynneth O’Couor Stevens, of Otaki. SOMERVILLE’S CASE. The allegations of misconduct upon which the application in Somcrr.iile’H case was based were: (1) That Somervillo received trout Mrs Catherine Duller, tho sum of XliiXl for investment on mortgage over a property .owned by Messrs T. A. H. and il. Al. Field, at Island Day, and that ho fraudulently converted the sum to his own use; (3) that Somerville misappropriated .£13:1 15s Ad. 'portion of a sum which ho, on behalf of a syndicates received from Percy Hudson. The court in its judgment said that it was clear from Somerville’s trust account at tho bank that before the letter of mortgage which he says he gave wad written, ho had depleted his trust funds so that there was not in his trust account in tho bank the amount that thould have been there if part of this JIITCO, beyond oven tho amount paid to the vendors, had not been used by him for hie own purposes. It was clearly his duty as a solicitor not to have applied tiust. funds which belonged to his client t® his own purposes without her consent-.' “It may bo true that if she had assented to it—and it was clearly proved that sho had assented to tho arrangement that is referred to by him ns tho letter of mortgage—that might have been a sufficient homologation of his action, but in order to get the benefit of such an homologation, clear and positive evidence must be produced. -There is no such evidence.’’ On tho contrary, the evidence tended to show that no such agreement as Somervillo alleged was made on Juno Ist, and that ho did misapply lire Butler's money. It appeared to the court that what took place afterwards was not of any consequence. There was no doubt that ho did what ho could to redeem the position, and to make Mrs Butler secure. Circumstances u-ere, however, against him. Tho value of land suffered a great fall. He considered, and his friends eon(ydqred, that he was in a strong financial position, but only because ho was valuing tho interests he had in land at a figure that with the falling market could not bo obtained. Tito result was that lie was forced into the Bankruptcy Court, and tho outlook at present was tliat Mrs Butler would not ho able to obtain al! her. .£I7OO. His conduct towards the Messrs Field was also a grave breach of duty. They, even if his story of the letter' agreement were true, remained liabla to Airs Butler, for ,£I7OO. and the first mortgage on their land which was to be paid off out of tho XI7CO was not paid off. _

Their Honors wore, therefore, of opinion that this was a case in which the court must hold that Somerville had been guilty of misconduct, and that the court must invoke the punitory provisions of tho Law Practitioners Act, 1908. He was.suspended from, practice for throe years and ordered to pay costa thirty-five guineas and disbursements. Seeing this, the Law Society, perhaps, might not consider it necessary to proceed with the second charge. Somerville was a Bowed one month in which to close his office. Mr Gray represented the Law Society and Mr Somerville appeared in person. STEVENS’ CASE.

The allegations in the case of J. O. O’C. Stevens, on whom a similar period of suspension was imposed, were: (1) That on October 24th, 1910, while acting ostensibly as solicitor for a native woman named Rangiapoa Waikari. but really in the interests of ono Sydney Rohjohua Bast, Stevens applied to tho Public Trustee for a loan to Rangiapoa Waikari of tho sum of JtlOiK) upon tho security of oertaiu land, and faisely represented to the Public Trustee that the money was required by the woman for the purpose of improving certain other lands which sho owned. By means of such false representation Stevens induced tho Public Trustee to grant tho loan and advance -£IOOO, whereas in truth,' as Stevens well knew, the money was n'Pt required or intended to bo used for tho purpose alleged but for the purpose of the purchase by Rangiapoa from East of a. share in a patent for indicating the position of sunken vessels, and called “The Patent Automatic Wreck Recorder,” of which Stevens. East, and a third person, John Bcntick Blaine, were the patentees. The substance of the second charge was that, prior to making tho application for a loan and subsequently, Stevens persuaded, advised, and induced Rangiapoa to purchase- a share in the patent from East and to mortgage her land for tho purpose, he knowing well at the time that Rangiapoa had no independent advice in the matter, and was not competent to act for herself. By reason of this persuasion and advice Bast obtained the sum of JCBOO from Rangiapoa out of tho proceeds of the 1 01 - 31 - - , ~ The court in its judgment said : Mr Stevcms has been for some considerable time practising as a solicitor in Otaki in partnership with Mr R. C. Kirk, the firm being know as Kirk and Stevens. Mr Kirk was also a' member of the firm of Kirk and Wilson, solicitors, Wellington. ’ Mr Stevens managed the . Otaki business. In justice to Mr Kirk we say at once that no charge has been ( made against him, and Mr Gray has expressly stated on behalf of tho Wellington Law Society that no suggestion of any kind can be made of any impropriety on Mr Kirk’s part. Wo entirely agree with this statement. The evidence clearly exonerates Mr Kirk, and it i< established that he was not cognisant of. nor could ho have been cognisant of, any of the circumstances alleged agamet Mr Stevens surrounding Mr Stevens« transaction with Rangiapoa and East. s,nd in respect of which the m.o nisi against Stevens., was granted by the Supreme Court.’’ '-•We find.” said their Honors, after , reviewing the evidence at great length, "that the charge against Stevens has be°n proved. He has allowed this native woman to embark in a hazardous speculation in a patent in which he himsed was largely interested, and which is of problematic value, and has subordinated tiis duty to his client to his own interest in his joint venture with East and Hln’n“, and has misrepresented to the Public Trustee the true purpose of the 10-n. It is not.moved that ha recoiled a"v part of th“ money obtained from the Public Trust Office b-vond UP leiitte-ate c o-te. but. in our opinion, he has been imi’ty of grave misconduct as a solicitor of this court." _ . , Mr Grav appeared for tho Law Society and Mr 0. N. Beere for Mr Stevens.