A TEST CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 28 September 1932, Page 5

A TEST CASE

MONIES CLAIMED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) .WELLINGTON, September 27. What appears to be the bust action brought against the 'N.Z. Law Society, under the provisions of the Law Practitioners ((Solicitors Fidelity Guarantee Fund) Act, 1929, is an appeal, before the Court of Appeal to-day. Nelson Ben B;shop of Waiongona, near Inglewood, instituted proceedings in December against the Society, claiming out of the guarantee luiul two sums of £IOOO and £52 10®, allegedly misappropriated by Harold John Moule Thomson, who formerly practised as a, solicitor in Inglewood. The Society has already met claims to the extent of over £SOOO in connection with Thomson’s defalcations, and did not dispute the facts alleged by Bi-shop, but contended it was p 1 ’ 0hibited. (from meeting th 6 claim out of the fund, for by Section 15 of the Act, the fund was limited to losses by theft committed after January 1. 1930, the date of the coming into t perntion of the Act, and the theft in question was committed in November, 1929, In his judgment delivered in August, Justice Blair, before whom (he action was heard, found for the S°* ciety as to the claim, for £IOOO, and •for Bishop as to £25 10s. The ’hearing to-day involves' the appeal by Bishop as to th e dismissal of his claim for £IOOO and the crosaappeal ; by the Law Society as to the amount for which Bishop was given judgment. Counsel for Bishop said that the Judge, in the Gourt below baeed his judgment on th 6 fact that the sum of £IOOO, which had been received, from the State Advances Superintendent in 1929, had been then stolen, and that consequently there wasf no money left to be stolen in February, 1930, which was the date alleged by Bishop to’ be the date of the theft. Counsel said h© accepted th 6 finding of the Judge as to the theft in November, but contended that subsequently in February, 1930, Thomson obtained certain documents from Bishop by means of false pretences, and having obtained documents which represented £IOOO, stole them in order to cover up his-.previous theft. It was upon, the second theft that Bishop's claim was ba-sed.

Counsel for the Law 'Society contended that, accepting appellant’s argument at its strongest, he had been deprived only of land, or of the documents of the title to land, neither of which, in 'English-Jaw,,-*was capable -/of being stolen. Furthermore, Thomson could not ’be said to have actually stolen the documents, because he did with them precisely what he was instructed to do, The default, so far as appellant was concerned, lay in the fact- that Thomson did not receive, .an Bishop’s solicitor, the required sum of money for them. Tlxe Court reserved its decision.