TWO BROTHERS AT LAW

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 18991, 16 April 1936, Page 10

TWO BROTHERS AT LAW

ONE A SOLICITOR THE OTHER HIS CLERK LONDON, March 2, An unusual application, in which two brothers were involved, came before the King's Bench Divisional Court yesterday. It was heard by Mr. 1 Justice Talbot, Mr. Justice Maenaghten and Mr. Justice du Parc.q. The judges were asked by Mr. H. C. Leon, appearing for Mr. John G. Page, "a young man anxious to get on," for a rule nisi, directed to the young man's brother, Mr. William James Page, a solicitor in Stafford. The rule was desired to order the solicitor brother to show cause why, the younger brother should not he discharged from articles of clerkship en-! to red into between them in November, 1932. Counsel said it. was an unfortunate position for brothers to be in, but his client had taken every possible step to get his brother to discharge the articles of clerkship. "RELEASE REFUSED" The fads, set out in the applicant's affidavit, were that, when the articles were entered into the solicitor brother had agreed to pay the younger brother 25s a Week, • from which las a week was sent to their mother. For a time all went well. . . "Since 19.15 my brother has refused' to give me any teaching and has not given me the 25s a week," the affidavit continued. "Ho also :e fused to allow me to transfer to another solicitor." Counsel outlined steps taken to get the solicitor brother to discharge the articles. He said that Mr. W. .1. Page had been written to twice by solicitors and called on by another, but still refused to release his brother. A deed of release properly engrossed was, actually sent him for signature, and a notification that, a rule nisi would be applied for. Neither elicited any reply. Finally two letters were sent from Sir Edward Cook, secretary to the Law Society, but these were not answered. Mr. Justice Talbot asked what powers the court, had in the matter, and was told it had a Common Law jurisdiction which had been exercised by past, judges. Thus satisfied, the court granted the rule, "upon the ground that Mr. \V. J. Page had failed to teach and instruct, or allow the transfer of his brother's articles, and that Mr. John G. Pago ought to be discharged from his articles."

"Tn the circumstances shown, the present is not a desirable arrangement for anyone," said Mr. Justice Talbot, adding that the rule would be returnable on March 16. "I cherish the lingering hope that the brother will put into orthodox language what he said in an early letter," said the judge. " 'lf you want to go, go!' "