COURT OF APPEAL

Southland Times, Issue 21823, 28 September 1932, Page 7

COURT OF APPEAL

ACTION AGAINST LAW SOCIETY. ECHO OF SOLICITOR’S DEFALCATIONS. (Per United Press Association:) Wellington, September 27. What appears to be the first action brought against the New Zealand Law Society under the provisions of the Law Practitioners’ (Solicitors’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund) Act, 1929, is on appeal before the Court of Appeal to-day. Nelson Ben Bishop, of Waiongona near Inglewood, instituted proceedings in December against the society claiming out of the guarantee fund two sums, one of £lOOO and the other of £52 10/-, allegedly misappropriated by Harold John Moule Thomson who formerly practised as a solicitor in Inglewood. The society had already met claims to the extent of over £5OO in connection with Thomson’s defalcations and did not dispute the fact alleged by Bishop but contended that it was prohibited from meriting the claim out of the fund, for, by section 15 of the Act, the fund was limited to losses by theft committed after January 1, 1930, the date of the coming into operation of the Act, and the theft in question was committed in November, 1929. In his judgment delived in August, Mr Justice Blair, before whom the action was heard, found for the society as to the claim for £lOOO and for Bishop as to the £52 10/-. The hearing to-day involved an appeal by Bishop as to the dismissal of his claim for £lOOO and a cross-appeal by the Law Society as to the amount for which Bishop Was given judgment. Counsel for Bishop said that the judge in the Court below had based his judgment on the fact that the sum of £lOOO, which had been received from the State Advances Superintendent in 1929, had been then stolen and that consequently there was no money left to be stolen in February, 1930, which was the date alleged by Bishop to be the date of the theft. Counsel Said that he accepted the finding of the judge as to the theft in November, but contended that subsequently, in February, 1930, Thomson had obtained certain documents from Bishop by means of false pretences and, having obtained documents, which represented £lOOO, stole them in order to cover up his previous theft. It was upon the second theft that Bishop’s claim was based. Counsel for the Law Society contended that, accenting the appellant’s argument at its strongest, he had bc-n deprived only of land or of documents of title to land, neither of which in English law was capable of being stolen. Furthermore, Thomson could not be said to have actually stolen the documents because he did with them precisely what he was instructed to do. The default so far as the appellar* is concerned lay in the fact that Thoi -.son did not receive, aS ’’‘shop's solicitor, the required sum of money for them. The Court reserved its d'-'/sion.