COURT OF APPEAL

Southland Times, Issue 21821, 26 September 1932, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL

VARIETY OF CASES CONSIDERED.

AN INVERCARGILL ACTION.

(Per United Press Association.)

Wellington, September 23.

The Court of Appeal this afternoon dealt with an application by the New Zealand Law Society for disciplinary action to Reginald Bernard Hill, barrister and solicitor, formerly practising in Gisborne. Practitioner was represented by counsel who said that no allegations of dishonesty were made against his client. The complaints were merely as to his drinking habits over a number of years. Hill was a capable practitioner, but apparently from a doctor’s evidence was unable to control his craving for liquor. He submitted that the public would be adequately protected if some lesser penalty than striking off the rolls was inflicted. The Court adjourned the Law Society’s application for two years. An order was made for the suspension of practitioner in the meantime, liberty being reserved to him to apply for the removal of the suspension. The Court also dealt with the application of the Law Society for an order striking Norman Harrison Gravestob, solicitor, of Christchurch, Matthew Priest Stewart, barrister and solicitor, of Auckland and Peter Gilfedder, barrister and solicitor, of Invercargill, off the rolls of barristers and solicitors of the Dominion. These applications were not resisted and the orders asked for were made. Costs £l5 15/- and disbursements were allowed to the Law Society in each case. In the case Rex v. Williams, counsel for Williams dealt with the evidence given in the Court below in support of the contention that there was not a word of evidence to show Williams had been present during any of the interviews when Poyter was alleged to have been induced to part with his money. The Crown Solicitor submitted that there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy between Williams, Daklin and others. There were a large number of highly suspicious happenings which taken individually were capable of innocent explanation but taken in their circumstantive effect entitled a jury to come to the conclusion that the guilt of prisoner had been established beyond all reasonable doubt. The Court granted a new trial. The Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, said he had no doubt the new trial should be granted on the ground that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of evidence. The case was one of suspicion, but there had not been sufficient evidence before the jury to justify the conviction.

justices Herdman and Kennedy agreed. Mr Justice MacGregor said he was unable to agree and was of the opinion that the case was one which threw the onus on the prisoner of explaining his conduct. That he had not done.