COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1497, 20 July 1912, Page 7

COURT OF APPEAL.

The case of w. g. somerville. aegument proceeding, Further argument was heard in the Court of Appeal yesterday in tho case in which.. William (.fcorge Somerville was called cm to show cause why he should not. bo. struck off the roll of the barristers and. solicitors of tho Supreme Court of Kiew Zealand. Sonierville was formerly in practice in 'Wellington, and is now practising in Dannevirkc. On tho Bench yesterday were tho' Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denuiston, Mr. . Justice Ocoper, and -Mr. Jusiaco Chapman. Mr. A. /Gray appeared for tho Law Society of tho district, of Wellington in support of the proposal to havo Somerville's name struck off. Soinetrville appeared in ■ person. Briefly,, the allegations were that Somerville, .-.while acting as solicitor to Mrs. C. Butler,-, a widow, of Wellington, received- frpm her a sum of ,£170!) for tho of investing it for her upon a first inortgago to be procured by Somerville for. her from T. and H. Field as mortgagors of certain lauds at Island Bay, _ Wellington, and of paying and applying the money to or for tho use of the mortgagors upon ,their completing the mortgage. It was said to have been the duty of Somerville to havo applied tho .£I7OO in paying eff prior jncrtgages, and to. hare obtained a first mortgage of the land to Mrs. Butler, securing to her the payment of the .£I7OO, together with interest thereon. Somerville falsely represented to , Mrs. Butler (so it was "alleged)' that- ho .had discharged. ,■ all outstanding claims upon the land and 'had procured tho Messrs. Field to be registered proprietors of the! land, free from all encumbrances, and had obtained from thehv-and had in his possession for Mrs. Butler, a valid mortgage, whereas, in fact, Somerville had fraudulently converted the .£I7OO to his own use, or had, otherwise fraudulently applied tho same to somo other purpose. . It was further allegsd against Somerville that on May 10, ■ 1908, he received ;£UB 12s. lOd. from Percy Hudson, on terms requiring him. to account for or pay the' money to an association or. syn-, aicate comprising John Ball Flockton and others, and that he wrongfully appropri-. ated JSI32 15s. id. of the, money to his own use. . '••-.■ It was mentioned during-the course of argument yesterday, that the case had not been brought as'a result of a complaint by Mrs. : Butler.. Mr. Gray' explained that certain matters had been the subject of general comment, and the council of the Law Society had thereupon set an inquiry on ■ foot. . ' ; On the previous day, Somerville had moved for an order rescinding and discharging the rule nisi, which had been obtained on August 29, 1911. The grounds of the-motion have already been published. Yesterday' Somerville continued his argument in defence. He contended that there wero many inaccuracies in Mrs. Butler's affidavit, and ho asked that the Court (where there was any direct conflict between his evidence and hers) should take his version.. / . - • "■-- - At 4.30 p.m.' argument; had not concluded,' and tho further hearing was adjourned until 10.30 turn, on Monday.