BEAD MAN’S CHEQUE.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1921, Page 3

BEAD MAN’S CHEQUE.

SOLICITOR’S LAPSE. SYDNEY, Aug. 2(5. The name of Henry Archdall Langley has been remuved hy Sir William Cullen, C.P., Mi Justice Bring, and Mr Justice Ferguson from the roll of attorneys. The respondent had, at the instance of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales, been called upon to answer affidavits by Mrs Bertha Catherine Thom, ot Roseville, j widow of tlie late William Stonaeh Timm; Mrs Grace Constance Caroline Weller, of Wentworville ; and Mrs Rebecca Fisher, of Ashbimier Street, Manly, charging certain irregularities i on liis part as an attorney. There was an appearance on behalf of the respondent to admit service of the documents. In delivering the judgment of the . Die Chief Justice remarked that the complaint against the. solicitor arose a, extent contemporaneously in, Dice, the most serious allegations being Dial contained in the affidavit of Mrs Thom, whose husband died intestate. For the purpose ol obtaining Ictlois ol i iidmini-dration of her husband’s estate. I she saw the solicitor, to whom a cheque drawn hy the deceased undated, fur L'l.‘o on his account in the (nivn qicnt Savings Bank, was handed N\ Mrs Thom instituted the respondent apply for letters of administration, she handed to him all Ihe documents relat- , in" in the estate, including the cheque. She asked him if she were entitled t« cash the cheque, lie informed her that I he was not certain whethei the hank; would cash it. hut that he would eon-, suit counsel and let her know. Later j j, t,nne.l out thin he tilled in a date prior to the death of the testator, col- i ■ looted the amount of the cheque, and j i appropriated the money. Alter being . a Horded the fullest opportunity ol giving any explanation ol winch his ] e,induct was susceptible, no such, explanation was given. The criminal aspect of the ease, continued His Honour, was not "hat the court was concerned with no". Hie question was whether tlie respondent .■as a fit person to remain oil the '<"• of solicitors. The answer was emphatically no. ... The ease of Mrs Weller, said His Honour, had some time ago been cleared- but that of Mrs Fisher had novel been covered hy anything in the nature of a satisfactory explanation. The case „f Mrs Thom, however, he considered such as made it the duty of the court to order that the respondent s name tie removed from the roll. •Tlie rule was accordingly made ahsolute. with costs.