THE FULL COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1892, 29 October 1913, Page 5

THE FULL COURT.

CLAIM TO BE A BARRISTER. COURT'S DECISION. By a majority decision of sis to one it has been decided that Arthur Daniel Lynch, solicitor, of Wairoa, is not entitled to bo admitted as a barrister. The application for admission had been made to tho Full Court by Mr. C. P.. Skerrett, K.C. (with Mr. F. 10. Kelly) and had been opposed by Mr. A. dray, K.C, (with Mr. D. R. Iloggard) on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society, and yesterday judgment was given by the Full Court'. His Honour Sir Joshua Williams, P. 0., read tho judgment- of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout; and his own, both being against Mi - . Lynch's admission to tho Uar, and their Honours Mr. Justice Dcnu.iston, Mr. Justico Cooper, Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justico Sim concurred, hut His Honour Jlr. Justico Edwards differed.

Asalnst Atimfssiori. Tho Chief Justice said: —This is an application for admission as a barrister under Section .5 of the Law Practitioners' Act, IUOS. That section is as follows :— . • "Any solicitor of the Court not admitted as a barrister shall be entitled to-be admitted and enrolled and to practise a3 a barrister on application in that behalf to a Judge if the Judge is satisfied that tlie applicant- is of good character and for at least five years' continuously next preceding the date ol' application lias been in active practice as such solicitor or as managing clerk to a solicitor of tlio Court, and has himself been a solicitor of the Court during sucli period." It is not alleged that the applicant has been a managing clerk to a solicitor of the Court nor that he has carried on an independent business. The evidence is that ho has taken out his annual practising certificate every year and that he- was an assistant in the offico of Messrs. Skerrett and Wylie, and afterwards in that of Messrs, Chapman, Skerrett, Wylie, and Tripp. Whilst lie was thus employed he has done the class of work set out in Mr. Skerrett's affidavit as follows:—"That during the employment of the said Arthur Daniel Lynch with the above-named firm he frequently appeared and practised as a solicitor in the conduct of actions in the following Courts:—(a) In the Supreme Court in Chambers; (b) in the Bankruptcy Court; (c) in the Arbitration Court ;_(d) in the Native Appellate Court; (e) in tho Native Land Court; (f) and in tho Magistrate's Court at Wellington and elsewhere, and wa& in charge of tho preparation of Court of Appeal cases ; Supreme Court work generally including divorce proceedings and in the preparation of brief for counsel and opinion work, and frequent]}' had ei:tiro control of Supreme Court actions until just prior to the hearing, when he handed brief to mo as counsel." Can the applicant, under such circum» stances, asked His Honour, be said to hare been "in- Actual practice" as a solicitor ?_ So far as the question of practice is concerned, he has done legal work, but ho has not had clients, and he has not, therefore, in my opinion, been in practice, ... I am therefore of opinion that, using tlio words in their ordinary meaning, they signify that the solicitor must himself he practising his profession and must n6t bo an assistant to another who is in active practice. I think, therefore, that tho motion must be. dismissed.

In favour of Admission. Mr. Justice Edwards held that Mr. Lynch had satisfactorily made out his qualifications, and was entitled to be admitted_ as a barrister, and said that the applicants practice as a solicitor at Wairoa _ was a partial qualification for hij admission as a barrister. In actual fact, the applicant was as much in active practico'as a solicitor when lie was in the employment- of Mr. Skc-rrett's firm, as if ho had been himself a member of that firm, unless it could be said that he was not in practice within the meaning of tho fifth section because he was subject to the control of liis employers, and was remunerated by a salary instead of by a share of the profits of tho firm. Tho whole question was whether or not-the applicant had been -shown to have practised as a solicitor. If ho had, he was clearly entitled to the benefits of the statute. In Hi- Honour's opinion', lie had satisfactorily made out his qualification. An application for costs against the applicant was not granted.