DISHONEST SOLICITOR

Otago Witness, Issue 4038, 4 August 1931, Page 11

DISHONEST SOLICITOR

REFORMATIVE DETENTION SEVERE STRICTURES PASSED BY BENCH. AUCKLAND, July 27. An Auckland solicitor, Percival John Scantlebury, aged 46, whose name had been struck off the rolls was sentenced by Mr Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court to three years’ reformative detention on two charges of forgery and two of uttering forged documents. Mr Inder, counsel for the prisoner, said that Scantlebury entered the legal profession at the age of 19, and had been practising on his own account in Auckland since 1914. He had been recognised as capable, and was held in high esteem by his fellow-practitioners and others. There had been no suggestion of drinking, excessive gambling, or high living. Two years and a-half ago he had experienced domestic trouble, and this had since been the cause of much mental stress. He had been reduced to a nervous wreck, and had been compelled by illhealth to neglect his practice. His books got behind, and were not ready for audit He was pressed by the Crown Law Office in Wellington, and had made a false audit certificate and a false statutory declaration in respect of his trust account for the year ended March 31, 1930. At the request of the Law Society he filed his petition in bankruptcy, and assisted the official assignee to wind up his affairs. Scantlebury intended, after serving his sentence, to try to rehabilitate himself, in the community, but his great handicap would be his loss of social tatus and professional standing. His Honor, in passing sentence, said: “It may be that during the last two years you have been suffering some kind of mental stress, but that is no excuse for committing a breach against criminal law. I have little pity for a man in your position. for if anyone should know how utterly wrong and disgraceful it is to act dishonestly it is a practising solicitor. You were taught uprightness and honour in all your dealings with your fellowmen. These are attributes which should characterise your conduct, but you have cast aside that teaching and brought yourself into the criminal dock. You were found not only guiltv of perpetrating fraud, but incidentally you sullied the fame of a calling than which I know of none more honourable. As to yourself, in proceedings of this kind, it is not so much any punishment that I may inflict that matters. What matters is that throughout the rest of your life you will be known and recognised as a man who has disgraced himself.' and who has by bis conduct forfeited all right to be trusted as an honourable man. In addition to the crime of forgery it would seem that you have appropriated moneys to the extent of £l3OO. Tn assessing your punishment I do not take that into account. I have no doubt, however, that the police will investigate this phase of your professional conduct.”