COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2293, 29 October 1914, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL

ECHO OF THfc GILLESPIE CASE ' Oliver Noel Gillespie, a Feilding solicitor, whose misappropriation of trust-funds resulted in Iris conviction and imprisonment, was the cause of an action coming before the Court of Appeal for argument yesterday, when the bench was occupied by Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justico Hosldng. The argument had reference to the Land Transfer . Act, 1908, and-a memorandum of mortgage from Charles Haughton Miller, settler, of Apiti, to Sir Gcorgo M'Lean, of Dunedin, and George Milno Mac Lean, accountant, of Duuedin, the two. latter parties being the Gunn Trustees.

From tho facts before the Court it .appeared that- Prior and Gillespie, of I'eildihg. had acted as solicitors for both Miller (mortgagor) and the Gunn Trustees, (mortgagees) in connection -with.a mortgage for £2700.-to bo raised by Miller, who was desirous of clearing two smaller mortgages off his property and of obtaining a cash balance.' '[he Gunn Trustees duly paid the sum of £2700 to Prior and Gillespie, but the money was never-passed-on to Miller, nor was it used to pay off the two smaller mortgages, although it waa shown that the latter had received one cash advance of £400. Prior, the senior partner in the firm, had since died, Gillespie had embezzled trust funds, and no memorandum of mortgage could he found referring to tho £2700. In these circumstances Sir George M'Lean tmd George Milne Mac Lean (the Gunn Trustees) applied to the Supreme Court asking that an order should be made (under Section 52 and 53 of the Land Transfer Act, 1908) defining and declaring the estate or interest of the applicants under the lost instrument (memorandum of mortgage). The application wae refused by His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) with costs, and it was against this decision of His Honour that the' trustees now appealed. ■ When the appeal came on.for hearing yesterday, Mr. A. S. Adams, of Dunedin, appeared for the appellants, while ,Mr. F. H. Cooke, of Palmereton North, appeared for the respondent-.' During the course of argument? Mr. Justice Edwards announced ' that the Court was of opinion that appellant's proper course of action in the first instance would have been ono for specific performance-. . . Addressee of.counsel had not con> eluded when the Court adjourned last evening.

DECISION. RESERVED. b Argument was concluded in tho Court of Appeal yesterday in the case of the Stanley Stamp Company v. Brodie, the Court reserving lecision. Particulars of tho action were published yesterday.