The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5381, 26 June 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1878.

A trial which has some public interest took place in the Resident Magistrate’s Court on Monday last, and which was reported fully, and with care, in our issue of yesterday. An information was laid by Mr. Travers, a leading member of the New Zealand Bar, against Mr. T. Kennedy Macdonald, for a breach of the Law Practitioners Act, 1861, in that he had, upon a specified occasion, acted in the capacity of a conveyancer, he not being then a barrister or solicitor, and in possession of the certificate of the Court required by the law. The Act is properly defined by its title, “ An Act to regulate “ the practice of the profession of the law “ in New Zealand,” and, except at one point, does not directly touch any individuals outside of the profession, or of the clientelle of the several members. The profession of the law is so important, from the broad social point of view, that the Act which regulates the education and the qualifications of, and affords the means of maintaining high character and the necessary discipline amongst, the members of the Bar, has a general interest which can hardly be over-esti-mated. The particular point to which we have referred is the prohibition contained in the following clause :

If any man, not being a barrister or solicitor of the Court, shall act aa a conveyancer, he shall forfeit and pay for every such offence any sum not exceeding the sum of fifty pounds.

It was for an alleged breach of this clause that Mr. Macdonald was arraigned. It was, however, satisfactorily proved that he had had no knowledge of the technical or constructive infringement of this law, described as an “irregularity ” by the Bench, which appears to have occurred, and the information was therefore dismissed, without costs. Mr. Travers’ action was taken, no doubt as he stated, on public grounds, although it might be said not unfairly that the particular interests of members of the profession were covered by the general consideration. This is reasonable and natural, and would have been better left without the excuse. Our reason for special reference to this case, and to the judicial decision upon it, is that an impression appears to have got abroad that it applies, or may bo made to apply, to dealings with real estate under the provision of the Land Transfer Act, and that only barristers and solicitors may now lawfully conduct the business of what maybe called “conveyancing” under that law. This is, we think, a mistake. The Land Transfer Act itself defines and governs all the steps in dealing with land under its provisions, and the Law Practitioners Act does not and cannot take away from individuals the great privilege which the Land Transfer Act confers upon every holder of a title under it of being able to deal directly, quickly, certainly, and inexpensively with land, whether as seller or buyer. Conveyancing has been defined to be the science and the art of alienation ; the science being the systematic statement of principles; the art the application of these principles; “conveyancers,” as persons who, being neither barristers nor solicitors nor proctors, employ themselves solely in the preparation of deeds or assurances of property. The Law Practitioners Act here confines the business of conveyancing to barristers and solicitors who are on the roll of the Supreme Court; but, as we have said, it does not necessarily affect operations under the Land Transfer Act. In introducing that Bill in 1870, the Hon. Mr. Fox said The registration itself completes the act of transfer, and passes the property from the one man to the other, and, by the operation of the Act, it confers, from the date of registration up to the date of the next transaction, a parliamentary tit.e, clear of all previous flaws and incumbrances. It confers a parliamentary title in the shape of a small slip of paper, which the possessor may carry about in his pocket from time to time, instead of having to produce a large tin box, lettered all over with the names of his estates, and containing forty, fifty, or one hundred title deeds, which would have to bo subjected to strict scrutiny by lawyers, to discover whether there were any flaws or not in them, at an enormous cost, which often amounted to a largo portion of the value of the estate. Sometimes small estates were actually absorbed by the cost. The size of a man’s title is not regulated by the size of his estate; an estate worth only £5 might have a tit o which it would cost £6OO to examine. That was the state of affairs with regard to the old system; but. under the new system, when once your title has neon registered, and you have proved yourself, under the provisions of the Act, to be the owner of the property, from that time forth the slip of paper which you wou d receive, about the size of a bank note, is all you want as evidence oi your title; and if you wish to transfer the property, you go to the registry office, hand over the document to the party to whom you wish to sell, and a now title is issued to him, which gives him a parliamentary title in which not all the ingenuity and skill of the most learned lawyer in the world could possibly find any defect or (law.

The difference between the old fashion and the new is hero presented with distinctness, ar.d the process by which the buyer and the seller of land are relieved from the weight of the conveyancer is clearly shown. It has been recorded to the credit of tho legal profession as a whole in this colony, that although the bringing this Act into operation seriously affected their pecuniary interests, they not only did not offer any opposition to it, but welcomed it as a great improvement in law and practice. The result of experience of its working has proved its advantages ; tho drawbacks which wore predicted have not yet been discovered to exist. Practically, wo believe, tho business of transfers of land still falls, in great part, into tho hands of solicitors, as a matter of convenience and accommodation for their clients. That is as it should bO. What wo desire is to remove the impression which, as we have said, exists, and has been somewhat intensified by tho late legal proceedings, as to tho necessity of the intervention of a professional man in such transactions upon all occasions. The Land Transfer Act of 1870 gives the Registrar-General power, with the

consent of the Governor, to license fit and proper persons for transacting business under its provisions upon payment of a fee ; it also gives a form of oath to be taken by the land broker, and it gives power to require security and to prescribe the fees which he shall be permitted to charge for his services; it also provides that a solicitor of the Supreme Court may act without a license or other of the conditions aforesaid. In the Land Transfer Act Amendment Act of 1876, clause 4 enacts that Any person who, not being the holder of a license, as a land broker, under the said Act, or of a certificate then in force, to the effect that he is on the roll of the Supreme Court as a barrister or solicitor thereof, shall transact business for fee or reward under the said Aot, or shall wilfully and falsely pretend to be entitled to transact such business, shall forfeit and pay a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.

By this clause, as it was originally drafted, we believe, the professional monopoly of the business might have been recovered, but the introduction in committee of the words u for fee or reward ” maintained the integrity of individual action, and saved what might be regarded as a principle of the original law, the cheapness as well as the simplicity and security of its operation.