THE SHAW CASE.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1925, 6 December 1913, Page 5

THE SHAW CASE.

OPERATIONS OF A SOLICITOR. \By TelesTaDh—Press Anopciation.l , Christchurch, Dccsmebr 5. Tho case of iho Official Assignee in tho estate of Walter Shaw, formerly of Timaru, solicitor, against the Timaru Property Company, was continued in tho Supreme Court to-day'. Tho principal witness examined for tho defence was Mr. Geo. Raymond, K.C., senior partner of tho firm of Raymond, Raymond, and Campbell, of Timaru, and of Raymond and Stringer, Cliristchurch. He'.said that, between May, 1912, and tlie b'ai'ikniptcy of Shaw, tlio witness had only one business interview with Shaw relating to tlio matter. As to Trevurza's relations with Shaw, witness told Shaw that Trevurza complained that lie could not get a proper account from 1 Shaw, and that Trcyurza wanted a' settlement. Shaw said that ho had been very noglcctful of Trcvurssa's' business, and was extremely blameable. Ho bad been overworked, was understaffed, and had allowed his legal business to get behind. Witness told Shaw that Trevurza's account must bo got. Shaw said that li.; was very glad that Trevurza had come te> witness's firm, as his neglert of Trevurza 1 s business was a. sort, of nightmare to' 'him. Shaw did not sa ythat Trevurza owed him from £10,000 to £11,000, and no sum was mentioned as tho>aniount of indebtedness. Slmw did not mention that ho bad been receiving money on deposit. Witness did not suggest that Shaw w ; as frightened, or that lie had invited him to make a clean breast of it. Witness did not suggest that an investigation should tako placo at Imric's office, and that ib would nnly be known to "a string of people,'" ami did not say that ho would see if lie could finance Shaw. Early in October Mr. William Raymond put a proposal l c-fore witness to purchase properties subject to mortgages, and also somo second mortgages owned bv Trevurza. Witness did not entertain tho proposal for a moment, on the ground that ho wculd not buy from tlie client. Mr Imrio saw witness, and 'lie sucrgestod that Imrie should form a syndicate to pureliaso Trevurza's property, and it seemed to witness ' that tlio purchase of tho equities by the compan.v was the best thing for Trovurza. Witness had no concern with tho preparation of anv of the options or agreements of sale. Witness did not know tho contents of tho agreement on December .21, on which ho was not consulted. Ho learnt that a property company was making arrangements ' with Trevurza and Shaw, latter, speaking to him, expressed pleasure at tho fact that tho matter was' being thus settled. Witness then noticed mental debility about Shaw.-At a meeting of Shaw's creditors on April 15 witness insisted that Shaw should file, though a majority of creditors wcro in favour of his not filing. •_ To Mr. Mvor?.: Witness kne-.v that advances had been.inado to Trevurza by Shaw, but not on what terms. ■ Witness had learned in October that, the amount was £11,000, the bulk being moneys said to bo advanced by Shaw to Trevurza. Witness knew that Shaw liad started with practically no capital, and had been in business only a few yeirs, but it did not, occur to liini as strange that Shaw should have been ablo to advance such a larce sum as it was known that Shaw had been oxcontionallv successful. Witness did not. knov that Shaw was receiving deposits. Shaw never gavo witness to understand tlisvt Trevurza's account was giving him trouble, but, his compete neglect of Trevurza's business troubled him. The case resumes to-morrow.