ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS BY A SOLICITOR.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1772, 24 October 1879, Page 3

ALLEGED DEFALCATIONS BY A SOLICITOR.

DUNEDIN, October 23, In the Supreme Court, in banco to-day, before His Honor, Mr Justice Williams, in re , a solicitor, motion to strike (referred to in the affidavits as A. 8.) off the rolls, Mr Cook, on behalf of the Daw Society, moved for a rule, calling upon the solicitor in this case to show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls of the Court us a barrister and solicitor, for having, as it was alleged he had admitted, misappropriated certain moneys belonging to his clients, received by him for a specific purpose ; and for having afterwards joined a; firm of solicitors in Dunedin as a partner upon the distinct and positive assurance that ho was in a satisfactory financial position, and for then having, almost immediately on becoming a partner, operated without the consent of his partners upon funds belonging to their clients, kept by them in separate trust accounts that had been transferred into the name of the now firm on its formation. The sums drawn out of these trust accounts amounted altogether to upwards of £I7OO, which the solicitor employed in covering his own defalcations, treating the whole matter as one of partnership account between him and his partners, and leaving thorn to make good the amount, which they did immediately on discovering what had happened. Other misconduct was disclosed by the affidavits. The matter, it was explained, had been investigated by the Council of the Daw Society, who thought it a fit case to bring before the Court, The affidavit of Mr Maoassey stated:— « Erom the statements of liabilities and assets furnished to me by A. 8., I believe that he was, when he joined mo in business, and had long been, hopelessly insolvent. Other affidavits were also made. That by Mr Strode, hon. secretary of the Daw Society, accounted for the delay in bringing these proceedings. Mr Cook read a letter from A.B. to the Council of the Daw Society, dated October 17th, calling attention to the affidavit of Mr Macasaey, which letter showed that the matter was one of dealings between himself and his partners,* and asking whether this was a proper matter of inquiry by the Court. This letter showed that the whole scheme of “ A.B. ” was to extricate himself from his difficulties by appropriating the moneys of his firm and thereby, being a partner, preventing himself from being liable for a criminal offence. He contended that “ A.B. ” had endeavoured to torn the whole of tho 4ran-

sections into a more matter of partnership, but ho had not succeeded. He contended that “ A.B. ” was not a fit person to remain oa the rolls of the Court. When the matter complained of was not indictable, the Court had power to strike a solicitor oil the rolls. When it was indictable it became a question whether, before the indictable matter was heard, would the Court entertain the application. , After argument and several cases Having been cited, his Honor said—“ In this case it is a mere accident that the clients were not defrauded. The accident that the present firm are solvent prevented the clients from suffering. I think you have established your case MrCook. If you have any other oases in which you wish to refer mo, I will take a note of them. It is no use going further into the matter.” Mr Cook —The rule will be made returnable before the Court of Appeal, under page 257 of the rules. His Honor—The rule nisi, to strike off the rolls, will be made in the usual way.