BURDEN OF DEBT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17343, 16 July 1924, Page 7

BURDEN OF DEBT.

SOLICITOR'S PLEA WHY HE STOLE MONEYS. SUPREME COURT SENTENCE Xionel Lancelot BJtcMngß, Solicitor, wbo pleaded guilty in tbe bCaglßtrate’B Court to falling to account for moneys amounting- to £ls, was admitted to probation for tixree year* by Hffr Justice Adams to-day. Hitchings formerly was employed by Duncan, Coiterill and Co. He pleaded guilty in the Alagistrate’s Court to two charges. In respect to both, he received sums from David James Falconer, 696, Gloucester Street, intended for Duncan, Cotterill and Co. Air Hunter, who appeared for Hitchings, when he came up in the Supreme Court to-day, said that a substantial charge of dishonesty against a solicitor must be regarded seriously, but in the present case there where strong mitigating circumstances. It was not a case of a solicitor in practice embezzling moneys. Solicitors’ accounts were properly audited, and oases of that nature now were very rare. Hitchings was employed as a law clerk. Falconer had been under a great obligation to Hitchings. He came into touch with Hitchings because he was unable to obtain some salary from his employer. Hitchings helped Falconer to have Falconer’s soldier’s pension increased, and arranged to buy a car for Falconer to sell goods in the country, and allowed him to live at Hitchings’s place for several weeks without charge. Hitchings and Falconer sometimes had more liquor than wa3 good for them. It was under those circumstances that Hitchings handled Falconer’s money. There was much looseness in the way in which the money was given to Hitchings. Air Hunter continued that in 1918 Hitchings, was a partner in a firm of

solicitors in the North Island. He left to go into camp, but was released from military duties, and was out of work for several months. He joined the AVar Expenses Department as a clerk with a small salary. Later, he was a temporary clerk in the Public Trust Office, again with a small salary. About eighteen months ago, he obtained a position with Duncan, Cotterill and Co. From 1918 onwards, he was pressed by creditors. His father came down to Wellington to go into his affairs, but his father died suddenly, and things were left as they had been. Two days later, his house was burnt down, and there was no insurance on it. He came to Christchurch with a burden of debt, which any man would find it difficult to struggle under. He had a wife and three children, the oldest four years and the youngest three months. Owing to the delicate health of his wife, he had to do a large part of the housework, getting up at o a.m. to prepare the children’s breakfast and attend to other domestic duties. He gave way to drink, which had resulted in certain moral degeneration, which led him to dealing with moneys in the way stated. He would nave to face an application to have his name struck off the roll. If the application was successful, he would be debarred from practising again, or for some years, at least. Ho would be unlikely to obtain work as a lav/ clerk. The punishment of being debarred from practising their profession did not fall on many men found guilty of that class of offence. Since his release on bail, Hitchings had been employed in the Public Gardens as a gardener. Air Young reported that Hitchings was a spltndid worker, and that he would employ him as long as there was work for him. Since the trouble arose, Hitchings had not had any liquor. Counsel asked that probation should be granted.

Air Donnellj’, Crown Prosecutor, said that Hitchings earned £4OO a year at Cotterill and Co.’s, but he certainly had been handicapped by the load of debts h© brought from Wellingtfcon. Drink, apparently, was his main trouble. The probation officer recommended probation, and stated that Hitchings was a model in respect to his domestic life. Embezzlements by solicitors xvere very serious, but there was something to be said for a man who, although qualified professionally, was employed merely as a clerk. It seemed to be a case in which the Court ’might follow the probation officer’s recommendation.

His Honor said that the amount of the defalcations and the circumstances, in themselves, were not as serious as in the majority of cases in which solicitors were involved. Hitchings had been under severe pressure and great temptation. Probation would be granted, but with special conditions, namely, that Hitchings abstained from liquor during the term of probation, and supplied the probation officer with a monthly statement of income and expenditure, and reported his general circumstances. No specific order would be made for restitution. On account of Hitchings’s wife and children, no order would be made for payment of costs of the prosecution.