COURT OF APPEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9966, 9 May 1918, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF THE ROLLS FOR MISAPPROPRIATING MONEY. A sitting of the Court of Appeal was held yesterday. On the Bench were His Honour tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Edwards, Mr Justice Cooper, Sir Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Sim. An application was made on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society to have William Howard Hill struck off the roll as a solicitor of tho Supremo Court for misconduct. The application was made somo months ago, and the rule nisi was reserved for the Court of Appeal. In his affidavit Hill made certain, statements regarding sums ot money, and an adjournment was made in order that an affidavit might be obtained from the person referred to. Mr H. F. von Haast undertook to get into communication with one Hamilton, on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society, and Mr 11. F. O’Leary on behalf of tho respondent. Hamilton hud been communicated with, and the matter came before the court yesterday. The application to have the respondent struck off tho rolls was made on the following grounds:— (1) That about Juno 26th, 1916, William Howard Hill received from one Harold Hamilton, Hope Ellen Hamilton, and Pearl Eleanor Douglas Hamilton the sum of £3OO, with instructions, and upon terms requiring him to pay the money to one Walter Godfrey Mantell in reduction of the principal moneys then outstanding under a mortgage from Harold Hamilton to Walter Godfrey Mantell. Instead of doing as instructed, it was alleged that tho respondent committed a breach of his duty and misappropriated tho money to his own uso.

12) That about December 21st, 1916, William Howard Hill received from Alexander Lorlmer Wilson tho sum of £59 3s, in satisfaction of a judgment obtained by Edwin H. S. Hamilton, for whom the respondent was then acting as solicitor; that he failed to pay the amount to E. H. S. Hamilton, and did fraudulently misappropriate the money to his own use.

Mr H. F. O’Leary, in addressing the court, on behalf of tho respondent. Hill, said that it would be remembered that the matter came before the court some time before Christmas, and was adjourned in order that Hamilton, who was at the front, might be communicated with, and an affidavit obtained from him regarding certain, matters that the respondent had submitted in his affidavit to the court. Counsel said that he had communicated with Hamil ton, and sent him a skeleton affidavit, and Mr von Haast also had communicated with him. Mr von Haast had received a reply to his question, but he (Mr O’Leary) had not. In view of tho replies made to Mr von Haast’s questions, senior counsel had been consulted, and Mr O'Leary said that he had been instructed by Hill that he did not desire to be represented that day by counsel. Mr von Haast then applied formally to tho court that William Howard Hill be struck off the rolls. Mr Justice Chapman said ho had only a general knowledge of the case, and was not conversant with the details.

Air von Haast said he would address the court if it was so desired. Their Honours said that it was not necessary. The respondent did not appear, and the court was of the opinion that the application should bo granted. The Chief Justice said the court could deal only with the facts, Hamilton had been communicated with and he had given the respondent no assistance. The respondent would he struck off the rolls, with 30 guineas costs. APPLICATION FOR ENROLMENT AS BARRISTER WHAT IS A MANAGING CLERK? An application was made by Charles Clive Chalmers, of Auckland, to bo admitted to the Supreme Court as a barrister under section 6 of the Law Practitioners’ Act, 1908. Air R. AI. Algio, of Auckland, appeared on behalf of the applicant, and Air P. von Haast opposed the application on behalf of the Now Zealand Law Society. At the outset Air vou Haast said that there was no doubt of Air Chalmers’ experience, or good character, but it was contended that he had not brought himself within the provisions of the statute.

Air Algio said it was needless for him to point out that provision was made under the Law Practitioners’ Act, 1908, whereby a managing clerk to a legal firm was entitled to be admitted as a barrister provided that the applicant had been, for five years continuously managing dork, immediately previous to the application heidng made, or partly in active practice as a solicitor. The applicant had had lengthy experience as managing clerk, and was employed by the legal firm of Al'essrs Buddie, Richmond and Buddie, of Auckland. He had given an affidavit to the effect that he had practised on hia own account as a solicitor for six months in Auckland, had been managing clerk for Mr Wilkinson, at Dunedin, and for two years had been managing clerk for Air Hampson at Rotorua.

Mr Justice Cooper said lie knew Mr Chalmers's ability, and ho w-as in a better position to bo admitted than many country lawyers. The Chief Justice said that ho did not see why Mr Chalmers, a man of experience and ability, could not pass his examinations.

Mr Algie said it was his intention so to do, but tho stumbling-block in hie way was Latin. He submitted that adaptibility was necessary to learn Latin.

The Chief Justice did not agree with that contention, and stated that a person could learn Latin by devoting an hour a day to study. He had known a. man to leam Greek in six weeks. Tho provision in the statute, ho understood, wao made so that old solicitors might bo admitted as barristers without being compelled to study for an examination. The provision was wrong and should not have been put into tho law by Parliament. Mr Justice Cooper said that if Mr Richmond had given an affidavit that Mr Chalmers was tho managing clerk to tho firm of Buddie, Richmond and Buddie the court would admit him.

Mr Algie admitted that was the case. He paid that Mr Chalmers had been managing clerk of the common

law department of the firm of Messrs Richmond and Buddie, and Mr iticumond had given an affidavit that in the absence of the principals Chalmers won if! be in control with the exception of the drafting of conveyances. He submitted that a managing clerk ot a department in a large office was a managing dork within the provi.nons of tho Act, and was sufficient qualificatiort to t-lioso proxisions. He further contended that the applicant was m fact, managing clerk of the whole office, though not in name During tho hearing it was pointed out that a managing clerk to a small legal office would bo entitled to he enrolled as a barrister, while a managing clerk of a branch of a largo office because he was not designated as the managing clerk of the whole office although in reality, such was tho case and. difficulty in being admitted. ’ Mr Justice Chapman said that , in England a principal clerk of each branch would sign as managing clerk and probably would know about the other branches. ° Decision was reserved. RULE NISI DISCHARGED. Yesterday aftodnoon tho case of Robert Daniel Molrer came before tho oorart. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) said that the Law Society did not think that tho respondent, who was a, solicitor at Kaikonra, had committed an act of dishonesty, but had muddled his affairs through drink. It was hoped that ho would learn a lesson by what bad taken place and abstain from lienor in future, otherwise it was not unlikely that he would Ido struck off the rolls. Sir Justice Edwards remarked that although ho was not a prohibitionist the case wan one in which tho man should take the pledge. Mr C. H. Mills, of Blenheim, who appeared for Molver. said ho would inform Mclvor of Their Honours’ remarks. Tho rule nisi was discharged with £lO IBs costs. The Law Society was represented hv Mr H. F. von Haast.