ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY SOLICITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17148, 30 October 1917, Page 6

ALLEGED MISCONDUCT BY SOLICITOR.

CASE AGAINST W. (i. BEARD.

(Peb United Prkss Association.)

WELLINGTON, October 29. Tho hearing of tho caso in which William Gascoyno Beard, barrister and solicitor, is concerned, was continued in. tho Appeal (Joort to-day. Mr Gray, K.C., in opening tho caso for tho defence on behalf of Beard, stated that •until tho present caso was preferred the latter had borne- an honoured name in hia profession and in the community in which ho lived. While admitting that ho had acquired an interest in tho land of the Native, Ilangi Kerehoma, ho (Mr Gray) submitted that the court must find some- deliborttto and oc-nscious fraud on Beard's part to bring him, within the discipliniiry jurisdiction of the court. Ho contended that much of the evidence that had been given was evidence against Chennels, and not against Beard, and further pointed out that those making affidavits, except merely formal ones, wero cither interested or wore seeking to justify their own acts. He instanced the affidavit of the Public Trustee, which waa to tho effect that the Public Trust Oftico was not to biume, and was not responsible for tiro private acts of Chennels, who was its agent in Wairarapa. Others -whoso affidavits were- of the same character were Messrs Gilfedder, Hailott, and Strang. Ho pointed out that Kerehoma had not supported the Law Society's application. Dealing with Mr Von Haast's propositions, ho said that Kerchoma had attained his majority in 1809, three years before tho purchase of Msngahina, and that there- was nothing to suggest that Beard knew that he was improvident Ohennels's knowledge, could not bo imputed to Beard unless there was direct evidence that ho had actual knowledge as to tho power of attorney advised and prepared by Beard from Kcrehoma to Cnenncls. That was necessary, as tho former was living in ILwke's Bay. Witli regard to the Europeanising of tho Native, Mr Gray suggested that Gilfedder must bo assumed to have acted with due knowledge of his responsibilities and duties ander the Act in making the recommendation for Btiropeamsing Rangi Kcrehoma. It w»s true, ho said, that Beard acted occasionally as Rangi's solicitor, and that he knew th&t Chennels was Ra-ngi's agent and banner, but Beard was not Rangi's solicitor generally, nor did he act for Chennels generally, and ho had insisted upon Ilangi being separately advised before no completed tho iai:d transactions. The evidence showed that Ilangi was separately advised by Hallefcfc on tho whole transaction. He submitted that there was no reason,to advise Rangi to bo separately advised on his application for Europcanisation. With regard to the'purchase cf Mangahina, Mr Gray said the pneo paid—£4B,ooo—was satisfactory to Rangi; it was £11000 above the Government valuation. As to the objection that practically all the purchase money was secured by mortgage at 5 per cent., and that when Rangi needed from £10,000 to £12,000 he had to borrow £SGGO at 6 per cent.,_ or 1 per cent, more, Mr Gray said the- evidence did not show that Beard knew that Rangi needed this money to pay existing liabilities, though he did know tflat Rangi was spending more than his income. Ho thought the loan was to buy another property in Hawke's Bay. Mr Gray discussed in detail the mortgage transactions to which objection had been taken, to show that there was no loss to Rangi and no gain to Beard, but that they were merely matters .of adjustment. He submitted that the fact that Beard and Chennels settled tho action brought by R-angi was no admission by BeaTO that there was anything fraudulent or dishonest about the Mangahina purchase. The action was settled on counsel's advice, because Chennels was in a fiduciary capacity to Rangi, and Beard knew of this, and further derived the title through Chennels, and that therefore they had no defence to the action, but would in the Court of Equity bo held to be trustee for Rangi. They wero therefore forced to settle upon terms dictated by Rangi, who, he submitted, drove a hard bargain. If Beard had been in any way blameworthy it had been, because of his too great reliance on other people. He had already suffered punishment by mental anxiety occasioned by tho present proceedings. ' Mr Myers followed. Mr Gray for the defence.

Argument had not concluded when the court rose till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.