A SOLICITOR IN TROUBLE.

Hokitika Guardian, 17 October 1917, Page 3

A SOLICITOR IN TROUBLE.

[per PRESS ASSOCIATION. —COPYRIGHT.] WELLINGTON, Oct. 16. ] The case reserved for the Court of Appeal in the matter of the Law Socioty to strike John Raphael Lundon p off the rolls of Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of New Zealand came before the Court of Appeal this afternoon. 1 An order absolute was made by Mr. Justice Sim suspending Lunuon from practice, pending the decision of the - Court of Appeal. An order nisi was v made by the Chief Justice on 12th f March, 1917, and an order absolute on j 2nd May, 1917. I The matters of complaint against t Lnhdon were as follows: —(1) That on or about 27th January, 1915, the said John Raphael London made a gross overcharge of £IOO against his then client Joseph Fletcher, of Auckland, labourer, for the said John Raphael Lundon’ s services in obtaining repayment from the National Bank of New Zealand at Newton, in the city of Auckland, of the sum of £SOO lodged by the said Joseph Fletcher with the said bank on fixed deposit. (2). That the said John Raphael Lundon persistently failed to account to Flotcher and his solicitors then retained by Fletcher for the moneys hold by him in trust for, or on behalf of F letch or from November, 1915, to 28th March 1916, although repeatedly requested in writing to do so. The ground of the order is that the said John Raphael Lundon ha 8 been guilty of professional misconduct in bis capacity of Barrister and Solicitor oi the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Dr. Fitchett amt A. W. Blair appear for Lundon ami Mr. L. F. von Hausr for the New Zealand Law Society. Lundon was produced for cross-ex-n animation by counsel for the Law Society to explain certain details of the (1 transaction with regard to Fletcher. The hearing is unfinished. ; ' FROM THE LAW SOCIETY’S STAND ; r POINT. f ... WELLINGTON,-This Day. . ‘ " In the Lundon case*, Mr Von Haast,

for tho Law Society, said that London must have known before Juno 12th of Fletcher’s drinking habits, and also the threatened action with his father-in-law, and of Fletcher’s desire to get money from the hank and dissipate it. in a final carousal, and to prevent, his father-in-law from getting it. He also knew the money was on fixed deposit. That the bank manager bad allowed Fletcher to draw again.-' 0. 1-

had declined to allow him to operatfurthor, or recognise any order upor it. London ought to have gone to tin manager and ascertained the facts be j fore making a ■ bargain to got money i from the bank. For £IOO a small fee I would have been all that was necessary, unless an action aga.inst tho bank followed. No action had to be faced. The difficulty was, as Lundon knew, to persuade the bank to break ft fixed deposit, and pny out tbe money. It was obtained without trouble and the £IOO was an exorbitant charge. Von Haast proceeded to argue that Lundon’s explanation as to this £IOO fee as now given was different from that given to Ostler and the Law Society.