APPEAL COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 53, 17 October 1911, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

A LAWYER’S CONDUCT. (Per Press Associaf.-.nn ) Wellington, October 10. In the Liindon case, Mr Cotter funner suomitted that Mr Lundon nad been guilty of unfitting conduct, and ho cited authorities to show that tne court had jurisdiction to punish. Dir Morrison, replying, first dealt with the autlioi ilies, submitting that tne matter was one for the Law Society's consideration and did not oring Mr Lundon within the court’s juiisaicLion. He proceeded to show inconsistencies in tire affidavits filed and submitted that the evidence snowed tnat Mr Lundon, after interviewing the prisoner, was given to understand that ilaodon wisned him 10 act for him, and that ho had no intention of taking the case out of Mr Skelton’s hands, but thought that Mr Skelton, being only a solicitor, would act with him in the Supreme Court. Tne case will be continued to-morrow. Wellington, October 17. Continuing ins argument in re Lundon before the Court of Appeal this morning, Mr. Morrison submitted that the main charge against Lundon depended upon tne statement of Hadden, a convicted criminal, which were directly contradicted by Lundon, whose affidavit was entitled to more weight than that of Hadden. He also contended that the re-pay-meut of money received from the police was not of importance because it was paid under a misunderstanding that this was to be the end of the whole matter. If, lie said, Lundon had thought the matter would still lie investigated by the Law Society, he would have fought the matter in the Magistrate’s Court, and would not have repayed the money. In conclusion, Mt. Morrison said there was not a single authority in which a matter of the kind alleged against Lundon had been the ground for striking a solicitor off the rolls. Later. The decision in the Lundon case base been reserved. GRAZING RUN CASE. Wellington, October 16. In the case of Budge v. Bayly and others, the reserved judgment of tho Court of Appeal was delivered this morning, Mr Justice Chapman delivering the judgment of tho court, fhe question was whether where a lease had been granted of a small grazing run under tho Land Act, 1903, the renewal of tl\o lease was to ho on the terms fixed by the Act of 1885 or on the conditions provided by the Act of 1908. Tho court held that tho renewal must be under tho Act of 1885. The question of costs was reserved. Mr Bell formally gave notice of motio;{ Tor . leave to appeal to tho 'Pi i vf’CoiiilCil. The motion was adjourned for the present. AN HABITUAL CRIMINAL. Wellington, October 17. In Rex v. Ehrman, an appeal from ■1 declaration that prisoner was an habitual criminal, the Court held that the declaration must stand.