APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1930, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

v ßy Telegraph—Presa Association).

WELLINGTON, October 15

In the Carroll and Somers appeal case, continuing his address to the court, Mr Findlay said that it was quite, true that Carroll and Somers had failed to have their trust accounts audited for the year ending March, 1929. That fact was admitted, and the practitioners were fined £SO each for that offence. Carroll had certainly disregarded his duty to the Law Society and himself, hut he had got into such a state of affairs that he was doing more work than he could efficiently accomplish, and he was in ill health, with, the result that he had let matters drift, and had not complied with the proper requisitions, of the Law Society. Carroll had to answer for that, but it was a far different thing to that alleged bv the Law Society. There was no direct evidence that any moneys had been improperly advanced to clients out of -he composite trust account- without the consent of the owners, and all of the incidents mentioned by Mr Von Haast could be explained in the affidavits filed in the case. The allegation that there had been misappropriation of moneys due to a certain estate was due to a. misconception. The true position was that Carroll from time to time advanced moneys to meet commitments owing to this estate, and these advances reached a greater total than the amount held by Carroll in trust for the estate. Consequently there were never at any stage any trust moneys due to the executor. On the contrary there was a balance dim by him to Carroll. It was a grotesque position that a man who had stepped out of his way to feed an estate with funds should be charged with the misapnroprintion of the funds of that estate. The Court reserved its deesion.

MAORI’S APPEAL.

AGAINST CONVICTION FOR, ARSON.

WELLINGTON. October 1-5

The Court of Appeal this afternoon dealt with a motion hv Hoani Heta Hakiwai, a native of Hastings, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from a conviction recorded against him at last sittings of the Supreme Court at Napier, when he was charged with setting fire to two stacks of straw, the property of W. J. Potter, thereby committing arson ; or alternatively, mischief. Mr L. A. Rogers, of Napier, appeared for the prisoner. He said that the main grounds on which the motion was based was that the Judge presiding at the hearing had misdirected the jury, and had refused to reserve for the opinion of the Court of Appeal certain questions of law arising at the trial. Hakiwai was sentenced to pay £25 restitution. Counsel said that, although the native admitted the actual setting fire, he did so believing that he was entitled to do so. Hakiwai had previously let the land on which the stacks stood to Potter, but, having determined his tenancy, and beihsr entitled to be in possession, he believed the stacks themselves were his property. Mr Justice Reed had refused to allow that defence to be raised at ‘he trial. Mr Taylor, for the Crown, submitted that such a belief on the part of the native Was not, a defence, and that the conviction should stand. The Court reserved its decision.