SOLICITOR SENTENCED

Hokitika Guardian, 5 February 1925, Page 2

SOLICITOR SENTENCED

DETAINED FOB H EFUBAIATIV I I it r.A l At E.VJ.

TIAIAUC, Feb Alni'tin Jos.qili O’Brien, solicitor, who pleaded guilty in tlie Alagislraie s j ourt lasi, week to a charge of the t liel t of 1'179. and also to a charge ol lorgety, appeared beiore Ills Jfououi Air .! ust ice Adams at the Supreme Court at Timarii this morning for i.en-

teiiee. The Crown Prosecutor (.Mr W. i>. Camphel!) appeared for the police am: .Mr ./. Emsliemippeared for accused. Mr Enislie said the ease was a \c:y sail one, us far as ntrused’s friends were concerned. lie had pleaded guilty to the two charges, but lie would like to deal with them separately. In October of last year Watson paid accused £l7O to he invested in a mortgage in real estate. Accused paid the money into a trust account on (idols’! 17. hut oil the night of October H) ho met with an accident, severely fracturing his arm. 1 hat had a very serious died on him. and he was in hospital tor some considerable time. W bile mending, the radial nerve became caught in the break and the arm was now practically paralysed. \\ bile in hospital serious rumours concerning accused's financial position went about, and consequently there was a rush oi clients to his office, in order to keep them quiet atctisod operated on his trust account. The money v.as rot taken for aicusod’s own use, but v.as used to pay clients. It was simple blundering, accentuated by the accident. In regard to the second charge, that of forgery, accused ought to have know n better, and he offered no *x-cu-.e. He toiiltl not. say why he had • committed the offence. It accused had gone the right way about it, all he had. to do was to get the owner of the bill oi* exchange to endorse the document. Sime the case in llie Magistrate’s Court he and accused had gone through the hooks and hud prepared a statement which shoved that the owner of the exchange owed accused about £7l). The fact that the money was owing to accused, however, was no excuse for the dime, and he did not wish to put that forward as an excuse. As a. result of the offences he would lie struck off the roll, which was punishment in itself. Ifis Honour said that the case was one of those painful ones iti which a man i.u a position ol professional confidence and trust had been led to betray that trust, and had been brought, before the Court, not only for the breaches of trust hut also for misappropriation of trust funds. The Court must take a serious view ol the matLor. particularly "‘lion tlu 1 an offii or of the Court. He considered everything that had been said, end well said, hv counsel, hut one ’•ou.d not lose sight ol the laeL that the • historically did not differ front others of its class. Accused was almost certain to he struck off the roll ol Ins profession, and that should he taken into account. He did not propose to pass a sentence ol imprisonment, but would order accused to be detained for j reformative treatment for a period not , exceeding eighteen months. An order was also made for the return of the Ipll of exchange to the owner.