CHRISTCHURCH.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6660, 5 December 1899, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH.

Tuesday, Dec. 5. (Before Mr R. Beetham, S.M.) Affiliation. — George . Cobsrof t was charged that, being the father of an unborn illegitimate child, he was ;bout to leave the colony without making adequate provision for it future support. Mr Donnelly appeared for the defendant. An arrangement had been arrived at between the parties for them to get Married, and Mr Beetham adjourned the charge to allow of this taking place until next Thursday, bail being allowed one surety of £50. —Charles Egmont Butler, who did not appear, was adjudged the putative father of.an illegitimate child, and ordered to pay 7s a week towards its future maintenance, also £5 expenses incidental to confinement, and £1 Is solicitor's fee. Mr Cresswell appealed for the informant. • V TriE Law Practitioners Act. —Henry E. Boardman was charged with having acted as a conveyancer on August 7, not being at the time a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Mr Cresswell appeared tfor. Mr,. Flesher, the seceretary of the Law Society, and Mr Widdowson- for the defendant. James Arthur Flesher, secretary of the Canterbury Law.Society,.savktbat jby resolutionu.p£. the Council he had been instructed to take proceedings against Boardman for preparing an instrument between Frank White and William Webber Wilson. William Wilson said that some time before August 7 he was in partnership with Frank White, and before August 7he aranged a dissolution. It was arranged at the time that White should give a bill of sale over certain articles under the Chattels Transfer Act. The instrument was prepared by Mr Boardman, who was instructed by witness. Witness was to see Boardman in three days, which he did, and the bill of sale was then ready. Boardman read it over, and witness put his signature to it. Boardman at the time of iiie interview said that it "was illeg-al for him to charge anything for the instrument, but the parties might reward him by giving him some money. Witness paid Boardmau 16s, being his half share, and White paid the rest. To Mr Widdowson: Boardman had in the first place said that he was not satisfied that it was right for him to draw up the bill, and the parties should go to a solicitor. Part of the'l6s was a fee of 5s for filing the bill in the Supreme Court. ' In defence Mr Widdowson submitted that there was a very general impression that anyone could do conveyancing work so long as there Was no'fee or reward. He drew his Worship's attention to two cases "In re Russell, New' South Wales Digest, 1894---1891," which sets for that the regulations were made for the protection of the public rather than for the legal profession. Also, re Strong, ex parte Campbell, Australian Juries Reports; 151. Strong, in his evidence, said that he was unaware of any law prohibiting him from doing conveyancing work. His Honor (had thought it sufficient penalty to order the defendant to pay the costs of the rule, with the caution that the practice of unauthorised persons executing this work would not be permitted in future. Mr Widdowson cited these cases to show that there were grounds for inflicting only a nominal penalty in this case, as the defendant was entirely ignorant that he was doing wrong in executing the work. He called the defendant, who said he had always taken an active interest in the business, and, indeed, the partners always consulted him when any important steps were taken. At the time of the dissolution of partnership, the t>wo came to his office, and wished him to draw up a, bill of sale. Witness refused at first, but White pressed him, saying that if he did not do so, it would cost Mm four or five guineas to have the instrument drawn up by a solicitor. Witness was at length induced to prepare, the instrument, but there was no charge made. The money that passed was on account of outstanding money, and was not in relation to the execution of the instrument. Witness was careful to impress upon the partners that.they need not pay any charges made by him, except what were made on paper. He was quite ignorant of having broken the law in drawing up the instrument, for he had always'thought-that anyone not a solicitor was entitled to do so, providing that no charge was made. To Mr Cresswell : The account witness had against the partners, which he charged for at the tame of drawing up the instrument, was for advertising, etc., but he could not remember, what all the advertisements were about. He could not render a statement of them, and his books did not show what they were. Frank White also gave evidence. Mr Beetham said he entertained no doubt that the deed had been drown up by Mr Boardman, and that he took payment for it. He must have known he was doing wrong, but the case was not serious, and did not need a heavy fine. It did not matter whether the defendant accepted payment for the work or not. The Act was framed more for the protection of the public than the law practitioners. A fine of 40s and costs would meet the case this time, but it would be increased for any subsequent prosecution. Maintenance.—A charge against Henry Walkey of being in arrears in his contributions towards the support of his wife was adjourned till January 9.