FROM DITCH TO DELUGE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 77, Issue 148, 26 June 1934, Page 7

FROM DITCH TO DELUGE

LITIGANT WHO LOST CASE I’ ABUSE OF SOLICITORS i : “INTOLERABLE PERSECUTION.” It all started with a dispute about a ditch. George Williamson Withers Penrice, of Croft Ash Green, Surrey, was one of the parties to the legal quarrel. He lost his case. (Dissatisfied with the conduct of proceedings by his solicitors, he plunged into further litigation, even invoking . the judgment of the House of Lords. Penrice’s last legal remedy of no avail, it was alleged that he let loose a deluge of abuse upon the heads of his erstwhile lawyers. As a result he appeared at the Guildhall on a summons charging him with having sent to ' Sir Robert Clermont Witt aud others, members of the firm of Stephenson, Harwood and Tatham, solicitors, a letter containing offensive words and threats calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. Prosecuting counsel related that in 1 1928 Pen rice bought a property at Ash, | and dug a ditch which resulted in the • owner of the adjoining property stant|ing an action against him in Chancery ' for trespass. In that action Alessrs. [ Stephenson, Harwood and Tathain ■ acted for Pen rice. In 1930 the action was tried, and the judgment was given against Penriee. Penrice conceived the idea that his solicitors had been guilty of negligence in the conduct of the action, and he issued a writ against them. This matter was tried before Air. Justice Avory and a special jury, and the jury, without leaving the box, found that there had been no negligence on the part of 'the solicitors. Then Penrice took the case to the Court of Appeal, and judgment was given against him, the Master of the Holls remarking that Penrice had ‘ ‘ started by being foolish, and had now become malicious.” During the hearing of the appeal, went on Air. Roberts, Penrice employed sandwichmen to parade outside the Law Courts exhibiting placards of an offensive nature to the solicitors. He then appealed to the House of Lords, but the appeal was dismissed without the other side being called on. Having thus exhausted every legal remedy open to him, Penrice had been continually distributing and publishing scurrilous and abusive matter concerning the prosecutors. They now came to the court for relief from such intolerable persecution, and if these proceedings were not efficacious, they would consider the possibility of proceeding against Penrice for criminal libel, if not for blackmail. In counsel’s opinion one letter contained a clear demand for money with menaces. Sir Robert Witt stated that since judgment was given against Penrice in .the House of Lords his firm had been subjected to a deluge of abusive letters from him. On one occasion Penrice paraded Old Broad Street with a sand-wich-board upon which were offensive expressions concerning the legal profession. “We do not,” added Sir Robert, “press for this man’s punishment, but feel that we are entitled t-o protection. We have been very patient.” Penrice submitted that the remarks he had addressed to this firm had previously been made in open court, and he submitted that he had committed no offence at all. “As to the allegation of blackmail,” ho continued, “I suggested that the firm should pay something towards my costs. Really, I car© nothing for money at all. This dispute has cost me £4OOO already.” The magistrate observed that he was bound to fiikl that the letter complained of was offensive and contained threats. He bound Penrice over to keep the peace for 12 months.