A GRAVE OFFENCE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1123, 10 May 1911, Page 6

A GRAVE OFFENCE.

. ! SOLICITOR SUSPENDED. c SENT-A THREATENING LETTER. e ( INADEQUATE EXCUSES. s .lohn Francis l'ullen, solicitor, of Auek- , land, is lo l;e suspended for a period of s twelve months. This is the elfeet of the • judgment of the Court of Appeal which '■ was delivered yesterday by Mr. Justice 3 . Williams. "The question in the present case," said 1 his Honour, "is whether Mr. l'ullen, a " solicitor practising in Auckland, has been guilty of professional misconduct, and, it' 5 lie has, in what manner he should be dealt with. The misconduct charged is the writing of a letter to Mr. Maliony, who is also a solicitor practising ill Auckland. The letter is dated July 13, 1910, ' and is marked 'private and confidential.' '. Tho letter begins as follows:— Dear Sir,—Mr. C. E. Ciroenhcad, of ' Waiuku, has instructed us (0 apply 1 to you for a refund to him of the I costs and expenses incurred by him in the action Greenhead v. Griffiths, and incidental thereto. The action, we are informed, was heard in June, 190.5. coram Edwards J., and judgment went against Mr. (ireenlicad, together with .£.lO costs. Mr. Greenhead claims from you a refund of this ■ .£3O, together with full compensation for the loss lie has sustained through your, as he alleges, wilfully misleading the Judge re certain documents purporting to be deeds of lease and agreement, which he also alleges were prepared by you 011 April 7, ISOS, but wore never signed by him. "The letter then went on to refer to further allegations by Greenhead of falsifying documents in connection with the case by Mr. Maliony, ifnd it then goes on to say:— Upon these and other grounds our client states that the judgment went against him improperly, and he claims from you a refund of .£7Ol Bs. Sd., made up.as follows. "Then followed a list of the items of the amount claimed, extending from 1903 to 1910. Some of those items were (his Honour said), oil the face of them, absurd and extravagant, and it was impossible to suppose that an honest claim could be founded 011 them. Tho letter coneludcd.as follows:— We are fully aware of the seriousness of Mr. Groenhead's claim but he is finite determined, to prosecute, it, and states that lie retinites from you an early reply, in default, of'which ho will personally prefer a chargo against you in connection with the documents now alleged by him to have been forgeries. Will you, therefore, kindly reply, or see our Mr. l'ullen l'C this matter at your earliest possible convenience f" His Honour went 011 to say that the meaning of the letter was perfectly plain. ".Air. l'ullen, on behalf of a client, demands payment from Mr. Maliony of a largo sum of money, and intimates that in default of an early reply to such demaud his client will personally prefer a criminal charge against Mr. Maliony. If ■that was the meaning of tho letter, there can be 110 doubt I hat Mr. l'ullen was guilty of grave professional misconduct ill writing it, independently altogether of the question whether there was anything really due by Mr. Maliony, or whether there was any foundation for the charges alleged against Mr. Maliony." Review'ing Mr. Pullen's affidavit, in which he 011deavoural to explain the circumstances | under which the letter was written, his .Honour mentioned that Mr. Fullen stated !chat his only intention in writing was to inform Maliony of Groenhead's claims, and of his firmly-expressed intentions to prefer a criminal charge, and to provoke • an interview, whereby he might perchance bs of service in preventing a'determined man cherishing a supposed grievance from causing Maliony serious annoyance. It. seemed to their Honours that this explanation was entirely inadequate. Mr. Fullen said that, he called at Mr. Mahony's office about July 1, with a view-of informing him as to Grecnhead's allegations and claims. The letter- was not written till July 13. Mr. Fullen had had, therefore, from July 1 to July 13 to enable him to.consider what lie should put in writing when he communicated with Maliony. The Bench did not think it was reasonable to suppose that llie letter was written without, full previous consideration of what should be said ill it. Nor was jt reasonable to suppose that tho letter was written to provoke an interview with Maliony, to enable Pullen to protect in some way Maliony from Greenhead. It was obvious from Mr. Pullen's affidavit that Greenhead was a determined man, and'had firmly made up his mind to prosecute Maliony until in some shape or form he got satisfaction of liis claim. There was nothing in Mr. Pullen's affidavit lo suggest any probability of Greenhead being restrained from prose- 1 culing by mere remonslranee on the part, of l'ullen. On the contrary, Mr. Pullen's affidavit showed that his previous remonstrances had been in vain. If the inten- : tion of the letter was to provoke an in- , tcrview. tho only object of the interview would be to ascertain how Utile Greenhead was prepared to take, and how much > Maliony was prepared to give if Green- • head did not take proceedings. "We have, therefore, this," concluded ' liis Honour: "A solicitor, 011 behalf of a , client, makes a claim for a large sum of money, a claim which he knew, or ought ■ to have known, had 110 foundation in fact. He intimates in the letter in ' which the claim is made flint in default i of a settlement bis client will take crim- ' inal proceedings. Then, when his con- i duct in writing the letter is challenged, ' his explanation is most unsatisfactory. ( Wo are quite willing to believe that Mr. 1 Pullen, in writing the letter, did not fully appreciate the gravity of his act. The affidavit as to his previous good character justifies such a conclusion. The offence, however, is a grave one, and cannot be lightly passed over. Mr. Pullen will be suspended for the term of twelve months."

Mr. Pullen .was ordered to pay costs, twentv-five guineas.

At the hearing, Mr. T. .Cotter appeared for the .Auckland Law Society, and Mr F. Earl for PuUen.