A SINGULAR CASE.
WELLINGTON, February 4. A singular ease, presenting some unusual features, was before the Supreme Court. Nelson Ltuv Society asked what n barrister whose name was not published, should be suspended from the roll of legal practitioners, counsel explaining that he did not ask that he should he struck off. The respondent was represented by counsel, but was himself in court. It appears he had been in a Mental Hospital but was released in 1920, as “unrecovered”. The, Public Trustee is custodian and administrator of his estate. The respondent is agin in practice, but there was a complaint that he had failed to register certain securities. It was alleged he could not even manage his own affairs, and the qmestion for the Court was whether a mentally affected person was a fit and proper person to practico as a lawyer. On the other hand, respondent’s counsel pointed out that a solicitor could only be struck off for misconduct, and mental deficiency wa* not misconduct. Ho contended the Court had not jurisdiction. Judgment was reserved.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19220204.2.38
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1922, Page 4
Word count
Tapeke kupu
176A SINGULAR CASE. Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1922, Page 4
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hokitika Guardian. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in