APPEAL COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 63, 28 October 1911, Page 6

APPEAL COURT.

(Per Press Association.) 'Wellington, October 28. In the case against John London, Auckland, harrislsr, the Appeal Cent t irilcr-eii nini to bo suspended lor twelve months from fourteen days after date, and pay costs totalling U 35. Ibe Court first laid down Inal it ,vas not necessary to establish that iccusod was guilty of any breach of the law. It was sufficient to bo guilty of serious professional misconduct. After a carclul and tuorougn examination of the evidence the Court found that the Law Society had more than established its case. London obtained an interview with Mr Hadden by subterfuge. The Court boiieved Mr Hadden’s evidence from :rst to last in substance to be true it almost every stage; it was.corroborated by. Mr Shelton, and those two witnesses could not bo disbelieved without coming to the conclusion that there .was a concerted conspiracy to ruin London, by false charges. ’i he evidence, was further corroborated by Sub-Inspector Harding. The result, in the Court’s opinion, was that London, in obtaining from Mr Hadden the Order . for the payment of the noncy, was guilty of a false pretence, which brought him under the criminal low; but tney were satisfied that his primary design was only to obtain ontrol of a sensational criminal case, ind obtaining the money was only an incident. They did not think it necessary that a criminal prosecution ..lionlci follow, as the offender would ic sufficiently punished by these proceedings. The Court then spoke of Linulon’s conduct as deserving of the nost severe reprobation as an aggravated ease of professional misconduct, uid his defence as being founded on 1 statement wilfully false.