LAW SOCIETY CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 152, 30 June 1932, Page 3

LAW SOCIETY CASE

AN AUCKLAND SOLICITOR STATE ADVANCES LOANS. [ Per Press AsHociation.| WELLINGTON, June 28. Charges that he had procured and used false declarations in respect of applications for loans for from the State Advances Department weic made in the Court of Appeal to-day against an Auckland solicitor, Walter Ernest Brian Dunuingham. in proceed ings taken against, the practitioner by the New Zealand Law Society. On the Bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. .Justice Reed. Air. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler, and Air. Justice Smith. Counsel for the Law Society said that the transactions out of which the charges arose took place at the end of 1928 and at tho beginning of 1929. Sub soqucntly criminal proceedings had been taken against Air. Dunuingham, the indictment against him containing six counts. He was also charged jointly with a builder with having endeavoured to obtain money from the State Advances Department by a false pre tenco. Throe of the charges were abandoned later, and on the others remaining against him Mr. Dunningham was acquitted. It wouhl be scon from the affidavits, counsel asserted, that Mr. Dunningham’s firm did a. large business in connection with applications for loans from the State Advances Department. The transactions as a whole, it was contended, were profitable to the firm, not only from the fees involved but indirectly from the fact that a large number of the transactions, perhaps the majority, resulted in the erection of new dwellings on land owned by members of tho Dunningham family or companies connected with them. Counsel proceeded to deal separately and in detail' with the cases in respect of which the charges were made. In reply to a question from Mr. Justice Reed, counsel said that Mr. Dunningham was admitted as n solicitor at the age of 21 in June, .1928. Counsel, in dealing with the various cases, contended that the applications were more shams or devices to get the State Advances Department to make 'oans on the properties. It was submitted that the transactions were for tho mutual benefit of the builder, the land agent, and tho solicitor. In his address to the C >urt, counsel for the practitioner said that the applications before the Court at least had the somewhat unusual characteristic that they presented to the Couri on the basis of affidavits a ease which without a solitary exception, was admittedly. on tho cross-examination in the criminal proceedings, agreed to be untrue by the witnesses themselves. “I mention that for.a number of rea- ■ sons,” added counsel, “but if for no other reason than this —that it is a difficult thing to examine in any adequate or proper way an affidavit which repeats in just, a slight’y different, form what the department already has admitted is not altogether true, and I make bold to say that, every affidavit filed by the Law Society in these proceedings is subject to that comment ” Misconduct Alleged. The Counsel for the Society «-untended further that the practitioner had been guilty of misconduct in fail ing to disclose to the State Advances Department, for whom he acted, rhe fact that false dec'arations had been made for the purpose of obtaining loans and in obtaining the execution of a declaration of trust which was not bona fide and not intended to be acted upon in order to procure a State Advances loan for a person who owned land other than that offered as security. Counsel for the practitioner submitted that over three years h:id ('lapsed since the transactions had been effected, and the statement of casual parties could not. be accepted without qualification. The practitioner denied that he had been a party to anv of the mis-statements alleged against him. He further submitted that, the practitioner could not have procured the signing of the first allegedly fa sc declaration as the application for a State Advances loan showed by his evidence that ho intended to live on the land at the time the declaration was made. The applicant, admittedly was afraid that he himself would be prosecuted for making a, false declaration; and having committed himself by giving a mis-statement to the detective, in which he denied knowledge of the contents of the false declaration, he was unable to depart from this denial subsequently. Furthermore, if the al legation of misconduct were based upon the statements said to have been overheard by two detectives, the allegations must necessarily fail. Although the two statements produced by the detectives in criminal proceedings were sworn to as being verbatim reports of the discussion between Dunningham and the applicant, they could not be accepted ns such as they were both written in the best police foive handwriting (although one of tho detectives could not even take down slow dictation in long hand nt filie trial) and they were practically word for word. Counsel submitted that the statements, despite the evidence of defectives to the contrary, had clearly

been written up partially from memory and partialv by corroboration. The court adjourned until to-morrow.

DECISION RESERVED.

[ Per Press Association. J WELLINGTON, Juno 29. The Appeal Court to-day continued the hearing of the case of the Law Society v. Dunningham. Counsel for tho practitioner submitted that two declarations of trust prepared by Dunningham were prepared in accordan with the instructions received from his client and that if the declarations had been in favour of an adult, no objeo* tion could have been raised. The pmerit ioner had acted in a perfectly bona fide mann n r, although h<» had showed (\treme inexperience of youth. Tho transactions as a whole showed that there was absolutely no motive for gain in the misconduct alleged against the practitioner and that neither he nor any of his relatives had anv interest whatsoever in tho lands offered as security for the loans. After hearing counsel for the Law Society, tho Court reserved its decision.