THE MOKAU CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 289, 7 December 1901, Page 2

THE MOKAU CASE.

HIGH COUBT OK APPEAL. 1 ondov, October 25th, 1901.-Before tho Master of the Rolls (Lord Honn-Coliina), and Lords Justices 8 iiliog and Mat hew. In the matter of Wickham Flower, and in tbe nutter of VeSolicror'a Act, 1878. (App.al of Wickham Flower from the order of Mr Justice" Lawrence, dated August s'h, 1901). Mr Lewis Tl.om.in for the appe Mr Norman (Jraig fur Mr Joshua Jones.,

Tbis was an appeal from the order of tbe Judgn in Chambers, who had up- j laid a decision of the tucing master,! and refused to allow the costs imposed upon the appellant by way of a " fine " for misconduct as it solicitor in his dealings with tbe title to the Mokau Estate?, New Zealand, by the Divisional Court on 23rd April last, to be used as a set-off as against certain costs in the Chancery action Jones r, Sneath and Flower, which the appellant alleged were due to him by Mr Jones. Mr Lewis Thomas, in an |iddress jof two and a half hours, urged that the appeal should be allowed.

The Master of the Rolls: The pro-j ceedings were in different ac'ions, and j in different Courts, one in the King's Bench, and the other in the Chancery Division, one result was civil, anil the other punitive. Tbe appellant has no "rights" iu the matter. There may be a discretion with this Court, \<nt » see no grounds for interfering wi»u the intentions of the Divisional Court that j inquired into the charges made by the j complainant, and found the Solicitor to bd guilty of improper conduos with r6spect to the title in quis ion and his duct's iut- rests. The intention of the C. urs below was that the solicitor shjuld be held ti the consequences of his own conduct. He appears to have acting for his own benefit, as against his client's interests, and for this re**on t K e costs were made punitive. Tha Jus.ic sin the Court below were aware that the complainant was claiming his estates by oihtr means, and consequently thty did not go fully into the circum»tatc s that might be decided elsewhere, but they satisfied themselves that when the solicitor acquired the lega 1 estate in th> property in the first instance, he was actingasttn complainant's solicitor. They had no doubt about that.

Lord Justice Mathew: If we wereioclined to allow the appeal, the decision of the Divisional Court as regards this solicitor would be seriously impaiiei. He was found guilty and now he has the assurance to come here and ask us to relieve him of the cons'quonce?, to say in effect than he is not guilty; for that is simply what it amoun 1 s to. Oh no. If you (Mr Lewis Thomas) bad told us at fits'; that this is what you wimted we would have saved you all this long talk. Lord Justice Stifling: I agree with the views takeu by my bioth<r Justices,

Lord Justice Mah;w: I have to draw attentioa to a serious matter in these proceedings. I see accidentally that the Wickham Flower who was fined for misconduct is not the same Wickham Flower who claims, thj costs from Mr Jones.

Mr Lewis Thomas: No my Lord, it is his partner. His Lardsbip: You see the importance.

The Master of the Bolls: We would like to bear something, Mr Oraig, as to the money lefeired to by Mr Thomas that you have received from the • Laud Society towards the costs. Mr Oraig: This is a matter for the Law Society and Mr Joaes to arrauge, not the business of the appcllent. That will do, |Mr Criig, we shall cot call upon you for leply. Wo nre unanimous that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. Judgment accordingly.