POLITICAL SENSATION

Southland Times, Issue 19335, 29 August 1924, Page 5

POLITICAL SENSATION

MR HOLLAND’S ALLEGATIONS CHARGES AGAINST WESTPORT LAWYER MINISTER QUESTIONS PROCEDURE. (Our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, August 28. Something akin to a sensation was created in the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Labour Party to-night. SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS. Mr Holland said he wished to take the opportunity of bringing under the notice of the Government the question of the handling of trust funds by a lawyer (whom he named), who happened to be Crown Prosecutor in his locality, as well as the legal representative of the State Advances Department. The case he had in mind was one in which he did not propose to attack the legal gentleman concerned but to place before the House certain details of several cases that had been referred to him.

Mr Holland went on to say that from the advice he had received, it appeared that he had loaned money to himself and paid interest for the use of it. At one stage he charged fees against the estate for having collected the interest from himself and when his fellow trustee interviewed him endeavouring to have the matter placed on a satisfactory basis, he charged fees against the estate for the interview. In another case, a returned soldier had borrowed money from the State Advances Department to enable him to purchase a dwelling. The lawyer was the legal representative of the Department and was also the returned soldier’s solicitor.

Another remarkable allegation was made by Mr Holland, in which a feeble minded person inherited an estate from a deceased sister. The administration of the sister’s will was granted in February 1919 when control of the affairs of the feebleminded person passed into the hands of the lawyer who held the power of attorney. When the final settlement was being discussed, a gentleman endeavoured to have the payment held over, on the ground that the feeble-minded man was irresponsible and that the estate should be administered by the Public Trust. However, the lawyer produced the power of attorney and the money was paid over to him. After the man’s affairs were placed in the lawyer’s hands apparently the feeble-minded man had made repeated efforts to get money from the lawyer to go on with. He alleged that the lawyer had charged him fees for interviews in which he had asked for his own money. The lawyer had also endeavoured to get him to leave the town and when he was arrested later on a charge of being a rogue and a vagabond, the lawyer was in the Court when he was sentenced to imprisonment. Mr Holland wanted to know if an attorney had the right to charge the commission. THE MINISTER’S REPLY. The Minister of Justice said that he regretted very much that the Leader of the Labour Party should choose to make a mater public without taking the fairest way first, but instead he hail chosen to bring the matter up in the House. Mr Holland: I spoke to the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr Parr: Three months ago. You did see the Attorney-General about a matter concerning the making of a charge for some search and other matters of a minor nature. The Leader of the Labour Party should have made definite charges. Mr Holland: I have brought them. Mr Parr: The Attorney-General, I believe, only heard a few minute- ago that you intended to bring the mauler before the House. The Minister added that of course it was impossible for a Minister of Justice to pronounce upon an ex parte statement against a private individual, but he could not help repeating that it would have been fairer and more just to put such a complaint against a public man in writing. It would have been a fairer thing also to have referred the matter to the local Law Society to deal with. Such Societies dealt, and dealt drastically with any many who dealt improperly with trust moneys. Neither would the law itself tolerate any inconsistencies in this regard. The hon. member for Buller took agreat responsibility in charging a man on the floor of the House when the man could not defend himself and it would be a grievious mistake of a member could not substantiate his charge.

“I think you ought to make them outside instead of using your privilege in the House,” said the Minister, “because it is a wicked thing if these charges cannot be proved and the unfortunate man has no chance of defending himself.” The Minister added that the matter should be given to the Law Society and after that to the Minister of Justice and the House last of all. But it was grossly unfair to launch charges in the manner in which the Leader of the Labour Party had. Such matters went all over the country. They were reported in Hansard and the damage done was irretrievable and he ventured to protest against the proceeding. Of course the Leader of the Labour Party was entitled to choose the course he had adopted by ventilating the matter in the House but—

Mr Holland: Will you hold an investigation ? Mr Parr: Most certainly. An investigation has never been refused. Mr Parr added that there were a good many complaints that could be made in the Minister's room in the first place and there was always the Courts and the ordinary way of dealing with such matters and there was no necessity to ventilate the case in question in the House at that stage