MR. DELAUTOUR AND THE LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2585, 20 July 1882, Page 3

MR. DELAUTOUR AND THE LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT.

[PBESS ASSOCIATION TBLEGBAM ] WELLING -OK, July 19. In the Supreme Court in Banco ta day, judgment was given on Mr DeL*utour's application for admission at solicitor of the Supreme Court. Mr DL.utour claimed to be entitled to admission, having fulfilled the conditions required by the Law Practitioners Act. It appears that the applicant had bean articled to & solioitor for five years, but after the lapse of three years and ten months he came up for examination, which he passed. The question was, whether he had served bis term required by the provisions. The following was the judgment delivered by the Hon. the Chief Justice and Justice liichmosd : —ln the present case, we assume front what took place at the argument, though the affidavits are not explicit on the matter, that Mr Da Lxutour was a member of the House of .Representatives throughout the term of his articles, except during any part of that time during which Parliament was dissolved, and that he regularly attended at Parliament during the sessions held in 1873,1879, 1889, and 18S1. Mr Bees' affidavit is to the effect that Mr DeLautour served under articles till the end of September, 1881, that is a period of about three years and three months, and that Mr D.'Lautour passed the whole of that term in the totive performance of the duties of an articled clerk to Mr Bees, except during suoh times as Mr DeLautonr was attending Parliament, As to these periods we understand Mr Bees- to say that duringsession 1878 and 1879 he (Mr Bees) was alioa member of Parliament, and had an office in Wellington and practised there as a solioitor, and Mr DeLautonr acted as his clerk there ; that during a large part of the session in 1880, though Mr Bees was not a member, he was transacting legal business at Wellington, and that Mr DeLautour acted as his olerk for that business; and that during the session 1881, though Mr Bees was not is Wellington practising personally there, Mr DeLautonr performed there certain valuable legal work under Mr Bees' direotion and as his olerk. Assuming that it was satisfactorily established that Mr Bees himself was substantially carrying on the practice of his profession, and transacting legal business at 'Wellington during the sessions in the years 1878 to 1881, both inolusive, the question was whether an articled clerk was or could be serving him bona fide, actually and continually as his olerk during theas periods. We are clearly of opinion that Mr Bees, by allowing his articled olerk to be a member of Parliament and to attend sessions thereof, has permitted him to oocupy a position entirely inconsistent with that of master and servant. A* member of the House of Representatives, alone ho was bound to attend Parliament at any time ssijd at all times when in session. It is notorious that when attending Parliament the whole or the greater part of the time of members is engrossed in the performance of duties whioh they have to perform. Thus we think that the mere fact of being a member of the Legislature is inconsistent with the position of an articled clerk ; but even if the question depended upon the actual employment of his time, Mr Bees' affidavit does not satisfy us that Mr DeLautour, during the sessions of 1878 to 1881 inclusive, so failed in his duty as a member of the House o( Bepresentatives as to enable them to say that during those sessions of Parliament be was bona fide actually and continually employed as Mr Bees' articled clerk. The application is therefore refuted.