CASE OF A BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR.

Colonist, Volume LVIII, Issue 14540, 18 October 1917, Page 7

CASE OF A BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR.

THE TJJNDOX-FLETCHER MATTER

(United Press Association.)

Wellington, Oct. 17

A case reserved in the matter oi tho Ne\v Zealand Law Society's motion to strike John Haphael Lundon oif the rolls of barristers'and- solicitors of the Supreme Court of New ''Zealand came bolore the Court of Appeal.

An order absolute was made by Ml' Justice Sim, suspending . j^ui/uoii Yixmi practice pending the decision ■of Hit: Court of Appeal. An order nisi was made by the Chief Justice on March 12tii, lS;i7, and the order absolute on May 2nd, 191.7.

'.vie matters of complaint against Lundon were as follows: —i.l) Tua-t on or about January 27th, 1916, Lundon made a- gross 'overcharge of. £100 ■against his then client, Joseph Fletcliei, ot Auckland, labourer, for lAmcion's services in obtaining rei)ayment from tho National Bank or Now 'Zealand at Newton, in the ci'oy of Auckland, of a sum of £500 lodged by Fletcher with the said bank on iixed deposit; (2) tuat Lundon persistently failed to account to Fletcher and the solicitors £hon retained by Fletcher for moneys 'he'd by ■ him* in trust for or on behalf of Fletcher from November, 1915, to March 28th, 1913, although repeatedly requested in writing to do so.

The ground of the order is that Lundon has been guilty of professional misconduct .in his capacity, "of a hamster and solicitor of tne Supreme Court of New Zealand.

Dr. Fitchett and Mr A, Vv\ Blair appear for .Lundon, and Mr H. it\ "vun, tiaast for the !Ncw Zealand Law Society.

Lundon was produced for cross examination by counsel for t:ie Law Society, to explain certain details of tire transaction with regard to Mebcher.

Mr Yon Haast said that Lundon must have known before June vzia vi Fletcher's chinking habits, and also the threatened action of his father-in-law and of Fletciier'.s desire to got money from Fletcher had been paid into that from the bank and dissipated it in a

final carousal to prevent his father-in-law getting it. He also knew the money was on fixed deposit, and that the baiut manager had allowed Fletcher to draw against it, but had declined to allow him to operate further or recognise any order upon it. Lundon ought to have gone to the lr.anager and ascertained the facts before making a- bargain to get tho money from the bank for £100. A small fee would have been all that was necessary, unless an action against the bank followed. -.No action had to be faced. The difficulty was, as Lundon knew, to persuade the bank- to break the fixed deposit and pay out. The money was obtained -without' trouble, ; and the £100 was an exorbitant charge. Mr Yon LLaast proceeded to argue that Lundon'.s explanation as to this £100 fee no.w-gi'vcn was different, from that given to-Air Ostler and the Law Society.

| Dr. Fitchctt objected to the loan bej ing gone into. . The Court said it could be discussed, but was not a matter for disciplinary| jurisdiction. j Lundon'.s trust account, pass-book v.r.s produced, showingx that money received' from Fletcher bad bone paid, into that account. i Dr. Fitclictt, on behalf of Lundon. said ho did not intend to make a imoro.scoi.iic analysis of the affidavits. There were two charges again-t L-v.n----don —(1) an overcharge of £100, and (2) failure to account. He submitted that the transaction was not a charge, but a- bet. chat Lundon would not -get the money from the bank. When ttie payment was made, Lundon recognised that he had not done wcsi"kM:or Ih'.* £100, and made an ohVv to do other l work. Counsel suiiinittctl that the

authorities .showed that a mere over-! charge, no Matter how exorbitant, \r;is not a ground, in the absence of ir;":u:!, tor the exercise of the Court's disciplinars' jurisdiction. A;; to the secoi«! charges that cf not. fnruishmg ucc-cunts, tlie answer, }\c submitted, was that Lundon treated the- transaction as a loan, and the relation of trustee anc! cestuique trust <lid not exist, and tlieve was therefore no obligation to account. In conclusion, he contended that e.,crything that Lundon had done had been i'all for Fletcher's beneiit, and that tnat ! was a conclusive answer to the.chaj'ge jof professional misconduct.

Mr Blair supported hi;1 leader's cun tentions.

Argument had not concluded when the Court rose.