LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1261, 17 October 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

CASE OF JOHN RAPHEAL LUNDON. TO SHOW CAUSE. ECHO OF THE HADDEN AFFAIR. LAW SOCIETY MOVES. Yesterday morning tho Court of Appeal hard a. motion by the Auckland Law Society, under tho Law Practitioners Act, 1908, calling on John Raphael Lundon to show cause why he should not be struck off tho barristers' and solicitors' rolls on t'ho grouml that ho had been guilty rf professional misconduct. Tho bvich was occupied by Sir Joshua Will'ams, Mr. Justice Dcnniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Chapman, iuiil Mr. Justicu Sim. Mr. T. Cotter appeared for the Auckland Law Society, and Air. C. li. MorUon lor Lundon. The allegations were as follow:— The Allegations. At tho police watch houe, Albert' Barracks, Auckland, on Tuesday, July 11,1911, J. E. Lumlon called to see Alfred Krnest Hadden, and having been informed by si police constable that Hadden had engaged another solicitor (Mr. Hall Skolton), obtained on interview with Hadden on tho ground that that intorview was sought as a pt-rsonal matter. On obtaining this .interview, Lundon dis-ciK-ed Undtlcn's caso without the other solicitor being present, nnd without tho other solicitor's knowledge, and obtained an order from Jla'dden for payment of the sum of ■£,1 18.'. 7d.i belonging to Hadden, and then in the hands of the police, and . duly presented the order and received ths money. It was further al'eged that Lundon had obtained the interview on the representation that ho was acting in conjunction with Mr. Hall Skelton, and that on July 13 Lundon visited Hadden at Mount Kden Gaol without the knowledge of Mr. Hall Skelton, and obtained a. letter to Mr. Hall Skelton cancelling the lar.tcr's engagement, and also a statement of matters connected ivi th Hadden's case. Lundon had refused to give up this statement to either Iladdcn or his solicitor (Mr. Hull Skelton), when it had been applied for. This letter and statement had been obtained on Lundon stating that Mr. Hall Skelton had thrown up the cafe. On civil proceedings being taken against Lundon by Ilndden to recover payment of .£! IBs. Td. it had been alleged that tho money had been obtained by falsj representation, with fraudulent intent, and that after servico Lundon had authorised Messrs. Shcahan, J.P., and l'lynn, J.P., on his behoJf, to arrange for tho withdrawal of such proceedings on the promise that if tho proceedings were withdrawn tho money woul 1 be refunded. The proceedings, it was alleged, were withdrawn, and the amount sued for and costs weTo no id on behalf of Lundon. to Hall Skelton, on bohalf of Hadden. Affidavits wero filed in support of tho motion bv Alfred Ernest Hadden, clerk; Hall Skelton, solicitor; Constable S. H. Bishop; Constable W. H. Bradley; Henry Clayton Brewer, solicitor; sub-inspector Ilcndry; and Chief Warder M'Murray. Affidavits in opposition to the motion were filed by J. K. Lundon, barrister and solicitor; Michael Joseph 'Shcahan, ,!.?.;. and Daniel Flynn,- J. P. An affidavit in replv was subsequently filed by Hall Skelton"

As Ono Cricketer to Another. In the course of his affidavit Lundon stated that, on the first night on which hi hail inlerrion'Ofl Hadden at the police station, ho had first called to see a prisoner named Anderson, and tho iatler had mentioned that Hadden "wanted to see him." . Lundon, being an old representative cricketer, andhavinp known Hadden for years as <i crictoter, bad a kindly feeling for him jand asked to seo him, the. interview lasting from 8.20 p.m. until 10 p.m. It was denied lhat, when Lundon spoko to Skelton on the telephone during tho course' of the sanio evening, tho latter had indicated any objection t'o what had taken place, or thai Lundon had told Hadden that he was acting in conjunction with Skellon, or that he told Hadden that Skelton had thrown up the case. Certain details in revoral of the affidavits were alleged by Lundon lo be inaccurate accounts of what' had actually taken place. He stated that, when he received the letter at Hie gaol from Hadden to Mr. Hall Skelton (cancelling tho latter'* instructions), it had been arranged that he (Lundou) should withhold the letter until Mr. Skelton had obtained bail for Hadden. Counsel for the Law Society. In opening, Air. Cotter remarked that tho circumstances were spread over four days—from Tuesday to Friday. It was important to notice, that, on the Wednesday morning (and after the first interview with Hndden) Lundon had arranged to meet Mr. Skelton at 10 a.m.-thrce-quartors of an hour after he had arranged a second interview with Hadden. In regard to the interview at the gaol on the Thursday, counsel referred in strong terms to the action of Lundon (as expressed in his own affidavit) in arranging with Hadden that Mr. Hall Skelton should be allowed to appear nest morning to apply for bail for a man, who was no longer his client. Mr. Skelton's affidavit showed that', when he had gone to see Hadden next morning (after having obtained bail for him) Hadden was surprised to sco him and stated that "Lundon had said that fekell.cn had thrown over the case." The result was that Mr. Skelton wrote to Lundon, demanding repayment of the money which Lundon had received in the watchhou?e, and the summons followed. Prior to the hearing, a paragraph of some sort appeared in the pros?, and Messrs. Shealian. and Flynn (who had had something to do with the reception of the Irish delegates, am! who had known that Lundon and Mr. Skelton had hcen together there —one of tho delegates had been the guest of Mr. Lundon) decided that they would do something to stop the proceeding?, and so avoid 'unpleasantness while the delegates were in Auckland, and so camo the withdrawal of tho summons. Lundon had not been a party to this nfc the outset, but had afterwards become a party to it. For though the money had not been paid directly by him, he had never repudiated the claim, though he had repudiated the costs. Mr. Cotter proceeded to make a lengthy Teview of the affidavits. He contended that Lundon's affidavit alone was sufficient.

"Have You iha Diary?" Oltte Hudden's instructions to Lnr.don irers put in, snowing that Lundon was to take the case on to the Supreme Court, if neecF-ary. either alone or in conjunction with Mr. Skelton—Ltmdon to bo senior eouijJel). Mr. Morison: Is Skelton a barrister? Mr. Cotter: No, he is not. Mr. Cotter then went on to refer to something in Lundon's affidavit which referred to an extract from hi- djnrv. Mr. Justice Edwards (to Mr. Morison): Have you the diary? Mr. Morifon: No, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, we dl know what thfit mean?. Mr. Morison: Decs your Honour suggest that we purposely failed to bring it down * ?-('. .'ustico Chapman: It is very importer.' t'vit it should be. brought down, and in~!\'-?i"d. Mr. Justice Edwards: Anybody with the slightest knowledge of le?al' procedure must know that it i? ab-olntelv useless to r|iiore from a diary, unless that diary is onrefullv scrutinised. Mr. Morison then oxnre.wd himself as being in nsrroement witli wlnt their Honours Ind remarked. He also f.hited that lie> had understood lh.it. Hip diarv had beon ]!<ade un by dictation to the cleric. Mr. Doimiston: Tt i* iwilly of no value. Mr. Cotter concluded his argument after lunch, contending that Lundon's conduct hud sufficiently -disclosed enttse why he should be struck oil' the roll. lie quoted several authorities. "A Steam Hammer fo Break an Eng." Mr. Morison staled in reply that tho Auckland Law Society had not di£clo-.?d a c.-isa to hi) dealt with by this Court. Section 77 of tho Law Practitioners Act delin«l the power; of the Low Society, and ifc seemed as if, here, they had 'eonietbiai, .

that might bo dealt with bv the society by a line, and not by the Court nf Appeal inflicting a piinitive'pcn.ilty. II had been sngKOstt'd tluit the withdrawal of tin; summons was not. ncet'.-sarily a withdrawal of (he charge of fraud, but counsel contended that everything uuinted to the charge havin , ; l-con withdrawn when Lundon and Mr. Skeltoii h.iii >linken hands. Mr. Morison was proceeding to icier to Lundon's action in obtaining "the instructions" from lj,i<li!?ii to take charge of the case, and remarked that it .was clear that he. hud not gone either to the police station or the gaol tn .-co Uadden, but that lie had been asked to see him while visiting another client. He hod simply acted in his ordinary capacity as a barrister. Mr. Justice Edwards here remarked (hat it \:as not the action of a barrister, but the action of an attorney practising the very lowest class of attorney business. Mr. Morison went on to refer tn the r.iiidavit of Constable. Uishop as being inaccurate in important details. Lundon was supported in liis statements as to what had occurred at thi> watch-house by Constable liradley's afiidavit. Lundon had not gone there specially to see HadMr. Justice Denniston: TTe did not go up to cut out JJall Skelton! Mr. Justice Kdwartls: Because he did not know Madden was there! Mr. Morison pn«ed on to draw attention to tho fact that many statements had appeared in the affidavits which were not evidence again?! his client. JTiey had been placed there contrary tn the law of evidence, and he hoped that the Court would take no notice of them. His client had, in many respects, been a victim of his own temperament, and had acted impulsively. It was really a matter between him and Mr. Skelton. and could surely have been dealt with by the society. Uis client had desired (o act quite fairly to Skelton, though ho may have been a trifle indiscreet in not refusing to discuss th« ca«o with Haddcn until he had seen Skelton. In bringing the matter before the Court, a steam hammer was being used to break an egg. Mr. Justice Edwards: Do you ask us to say that it was a proper thing or a thing anything but a disgraceful thing ■to obtain tho document from Haduen and the money while the man was in a muddled condition? Mr. Morison submitted that it was a fair inference to draw that Lundon had believed that Haddcn desired his services. In a discussion which followed, regarding the prisoner Anderson's part in the affair, Mr. Justice Edwards suggested that Anderson hnd been "touting for Lundon. Having no money, and knowing, probably, that Hadden had some, Anderson had endeavoured to secure Hadden as a client for Lundon in order that the latter might tako his (Anderson's) case free. Mr. Morison said that it was absurd to suggest (in regard to tho M ISs. 7d.) that Lundon had taken it for the purpose of depriving Skelton from benefiting, rather than"treating it as a part of the fund out cf which counsel were jointly to receive remuneration. Mr. Skelion was not a barrister, and Lundon had intended that they should act together. He had not had the least desire to injure Skelton. Mr. Justice Chapman pointed out that, for all the Court knew, Mr. Skelton mirfit ba a very proper person to engage counsel for tho Supremo Court trial. Mr. Justice Edwards remarked that Mr. Skelton might possibly qualify as a barrister in a manner similar to Mr. Lnndon —by the back door of five years' experience. His Honour asked if Mr. Morison suggested that a solicitor was any better qualified for a defence on the day after his five years than on the day previously. Man Who Forrjave His Enemies on His Deathbed. During tho course of further argument Mr. Morison remarked that Mr. Lundon had boon anxious to fight tho civil action for X 3 IBs. 7d., but he had given way to those who wished to have the inalier settled quietly, on account of t;ho Irish delegates being in Auckland—one of them was staying with Mr. Lundon. Mr. Justice Edwards remarked that it was bad policy (or any solicitor, for the sake of being pleasant to any delegatesEnglish, Irish, or Scotch—to allow a charge of fraud to be settled in thai wa>. Mr. Morison observed that the whole t.hiug was supposed to bo .at nn end when Skelton and Luudon had shaken hands. Mr. Justice Sim (smiling): But Mr. Skelton says that they thooli hands without prejudice. Mr. Justice Denniston said it was similar to the csse of the man who, when asked on his -dKithbed if he forgave his enemies, replied in tho nfiirmntive, but intimated that "it was without prejudice in tho event of his surviving.' . At -J.SO p.m. argument had net concluded, an<l tho Court adjourned till this morning. SALE OF LEASE.

AND TIIE LAW THAT GOVERNS IT. Decision of the Court was delivered by Mr. .Tiistico Chapman in an origiiialin;; summons, brought in the Supremo Co\irt, New Plymouth, and removed by consent of the parties to the Court of Appeal. On tho bench were tho Chief Justice, Mr. Jiistico Denniston. Mr. Justice Edwards, and Sir. Justice Chapman. Tho pirHos to (hi: action were Arthur William Budge, farmer, of Stratford, plaintiff, and Thomas Bayly, grocer, of Hamilton. Lewis Bayly, s!ockbuyer, of Wangaiuii, ar.d Horace Bayly, farmer, of ICai Iwi (executors of the will of James Bayly, deceosed), and Thomas Elliott, farmer, AYn-it.ara, defendant?. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, and tho Attorney-General were also rile:!. At the hearing Mr. Martin Chapman, K.C., with him Mr. J. H. Quilliam, of New Plymouth, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. II." D. Hell, K.C., with him Mr. G. H. Foil, appeared for the defendants (the Baylys and Thomas Elliott). The Attor-tipy-ti<"nor:vl and the Commissioner of Crown Lands were- represented by tho So-licitor-Goneral (Mr. J. W. Salmond). The questioT for the consideration of tho Court was: Where a lease of a small grazing run was granted under the provisions of the Land Act, 18S3, are the lessees, on tho expiry of the terms of lease, after tho passing of tho Laud Act, IEIOB, entitled onJv to a renewal thereof on tho terms fixed by the Land Act, ISBS, and is tho same subject to the conditions of renewal contained in Section 209 of the last mentioned Act, or is the fame subject to tho Land Act, 1008, and nro the conditions of tne said last-mentioned Act .ipplv-ible to such renewal? It appeared from plaintiff's statement that, ny deed of lease dated September 1, 18S8, an area- of land, comprising 8840 acres in tho North Survey District, Auckland Province, wns demited to James Bayly (now deceased) and Thomas Elliott for a term of 21 years. In accordance- with the provisions nf Section 200 of tho Land Act of 1885, Bayly and Elliott obtained a renewal of the lease in 'HOD. In the following year Bayly, di<vl and his executors (Thomas Bayly, Lewis Bnyly, and Horace Bayly) ,and Elliott fold the grazing run to the plaintiff (Arthur William Budge). Doubt then arose as to whether the renewal of the lease was effected under the Land Act, ISSS, or under the Land Act, 1008, and whether tho rights of renewal of tho lessees were to be determined by Section 209, and the succeeding Sections of tho Act of 1885, and were defeasible, or whether they were to be determined nnder Part V of tho Act of IMS, and were indefeasible. It was agreed, however, to complete th» sale of tho land and to get a judgment of the Court of Appeal on the question, and if the purchaser- (Budge) obtained, before December 31 n*?:r, a declaratory judgment that the liv.se w.\s not a lease with a perpetual right of ronewn!, then the vendor? (the executors of James Bayly and Thomas Elliott) would allow a rebnte of .£SOOO off the purchase money. All costs of obtaining the judgment would be paid by (he purchaser (Bndgo) up to £301). Tho decision of the Court was th.it the lessees aro entitled to a renewal only under the Act of ISSS and tho renewal is subject to tho conditions of Section 20!) of that Act , . Mr. Martin Chapman, K.C., asked if the Court would ndd that the lease was not perpetually renewable. It wns decided thai this question should be held over until the Chief Justice was present so thnt the relate of ,eOOO still hangs in the balance. The question of costs was aha dofornvl. Mr. 11. D. Hell, K.C.. gave notice to move for an appeal to llu J'rivy Council and asked to hove the motion adjourned. SUPREiYiE COURT. The. Chief Justice (Sir liouwt Stout) presided at a bankruptcy sitting of (ho Supreme Court yesterday. On the application of Mr. .1. W. Macdonakl, solicitor for tho Public Trustee, tlie bankruptcy of Elizabeth Kitsou, tab propriotresi, of I Cambridge Terrace, was annulled. i

On (lie application of Mr. T. Young, .11 L. Chatwiii, tolwcconisl, was granted liis discharge. The w-.o of Patrick Gill was adjoiirnotl tin tln> application of Mr. ]-|. L. Mac-lull. drorg" fir: nock's application (or discharge I'linio up, but on Iho motion nf -Mr. V. IC. ICirkealdic it was adjourned owing (o (he alienee of Mr. A. L. Herdinan.

AUQISTRATE'S COURT. i I

(Before Mr. W. G. Kiddell, S.M.) Two first offenders for insobriety were convicted and discharged, and for a similar offenco two others, who did not appear, were fined. 10s., the amount of their bail. John Kenny was fined 103., in default ■IS hours, ior insobriety. I'or breaches of prohibition orders, Jeasio Walsin was fine.l SOs., in default Kvven dr.ys' detention; Edward Waters was fined 405., in default sve-n days' imprisonment, and Henry Kdwards and JJe.nnis Mahoney were similarly dealt with. On being called to answer certain charges, Wai lei' Harris, who had Iμ remanded from Friday Inst, failed to appear. A warrant was ordered to be issued lor lα* nrrest, and ho is to show cause why his bail should not lie eslrcatetl. In the remanded caso in which application had been made, on behalf of J noebe Seymour for a separation order from her husband, Hcmy John Seymour, ms Worship declined to grant s.ini'e. Defendant, however, was ordered to pay Ifis. per week towards the rapport of his'wife. Eva Lilian Cooksley made application to have arrears amounting to £7 10?., in respect to a maintenance order, remitted. Xlns was granted. _ Alfred U. Bacon was ordered (o pay is. per week towards the maintenance of each of Jiis four children. The ease of John Lowe, who was charged with being the father of an illegitimate chile, was further remaadoi until tomorrow.