SECRET COMMISSIONS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14465, 6 March 1909, Page 5

SECRET COMMISSIONS.

LAW SOCIETY'S PROTEST. (Psa Uxitkd Pa ess Association.)

CHRI3TCHURCH, March 5. Some remarks were made in. the Magi*, trato's Court today on the subject." of secret commi-sions. The Law Society took exeoption to statements made durin'" tlie hearing of the case Tail v. Curlett yesterday, in the course of which Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., was asked to review a money-lending transaction. Amongst tho sums charged the borrower by the louder was one of £25 3s 6d, which represented one-third o! tlie commission received by an auctioneer who sold tho borrower's property, and which was paid by tho auctioneer lo the lender. When a witness la land salesman) stated that this practice was. uii understood thing amsugsl agents, Mr Rishop remarked that tho auctioneer must charge too much for the work when lie ronkl afford to make a present of one-third of his commission to the. lender. At a later stage, when counsel for the lender iva.i statfng tho c,i.=c for the defence, Mr Bishop asked inin for his opinion of what counsel for the borrower had described as a secret coiniiii-.---:-'iii. Mr Grosswcll replied that he did no! like it hut he believed that it was a practice that obtained largely. "Though perhaps I should not savV," counsel continued. "Even solicitors do the same thing. There ]s not one firm of solicitors that does not. do the same thing. Agents are a"owed in f on;c cases one-third, and in others one-half. Still I do r.ol like the practice." "Jt is an abominable practice" was Mr Bishop's comment.

( The president of the Law Society (Mr IJeawit-k) appeared m court, this 'momin.!,', and t.K.k exception to t-ho statement that it was ii universal practico among solicitors to divi(ii; the commissions with lann agents m- others in tlie 1; UU 1 Rile uimniw. .Whether tlml was ~w t |v what was said he did not know, but k wished to give ihu statement an emphatic denial. He did not think that any respectable- solicitor divided his eommis'. sum with land agents. He Knew that solicitors hat) been approached, and nad been offered shaves of commissions where i.md Hint been put in the hands of an agent for sale, hut in every instance which had come under lim 'notice the solicitors had ab.-oinieiv rcaiscd to receive, it. If .Mr Oesswell had said, or wished the court to understand, otherwise, it was absolutely untrue.

The Magistrate (.Mr H. W. Bishop) said' that he had been very emphatic on the matter, but he miglit have lost the dnit ot Mr C'rewwcll's remarks, "ir Crcssivell, however, was equally emphatic in assuring him that solicitors were in tho habit of .sharing commissions or or other. What t'.ic "something or other" was no was net prepared to say. Mr Beswick said that if a ' solicitor employed a, solicitor m another coimtrv or m another part of the Dominion [hero would be a, division of the stereotypy charges between the two. That.was tho recognised practice, and it was not to the detriment of the client.

JtV Bishop replied, that such a case would be scarcely cognate to the one lie had in his mind. But he did not like to say, ex parte, what was in his nund. He was so disgusted with one or two aspects of the matter that he n«sd 60 me vorv strong terms. Mt Leathern, who was engaged in flic case, had at once denied the statement, made bv Mr Cresswell. but Atr CressweM liad assured him that, without a shadow of doubt, every member of the profession in Christehurch did something or other. He was taken by surprise at the statement. But it did not alter Ins view of the particular case being heard.

-Mr Beswick explained that he considered that he was justified in calling attention to the matter, especially where tho bony of solicitors were mentioned as doing something which the court had condemned as abominable.

-Mr life hop said that the point was that a person was being charged more for tho transaction of some business (hall the service was worth in order that another party could be paid a share of tho commission. If _£99 was charged, for a service, und £33 was paid to someone who had no right to it, he would consider that £33 too much had bean chained. Mr Beswick agreed; it would' be a secret commission.

Mr T. G. Russell, who as in court, entered his protest against Mr Cresswell's statement. He knew" t'iiat solicitors had been approached, but in a'l instances thev had declined to lower the dignity of this profession by accepting the secret commission. The practice was to neither halvo nor receive. It was shameful that untrue statements should be made besmirching the profession. Mr E. T. Harper also protested against the reflection cast upon tho whole body of_ solicitors. He knew that secret commissions had been offered to solicitors, hut he had never known of one being accepted. In a letter to the local 'papers Mr Cresswell explained that w'uat. he was referring to was agency allowances between different solicitors.