BARRISTER CITED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9793, 17 October 1917, Page 3

BARRISTER CITED

CASE OF J. R. LONDON BEFORE THE APPEAL COURT YESTERDAY. The case of John Raphael Lundon, Barrister and solicitor, of Auckland, came before the Appeal Court yesterday upon a motion by the Law Society of Auckland that ho should answer certain allegations of professional misconduct. The application that a rule nisi should bo made absolute had been reserved for the Court of Appeal. It was alleged that on or about January 3<th Lundon made a gross overcharge of ,£I(W against a client, Joseph Fletcher, of Auckland, labourer, for ilia services in obtaining pre-payment from the National Bajik of New Zealand, at Newton, or a emu of jtaOO lodged by Fletcher with the bank on fixed deposit. It was further alleged that Lundon persistently failed to account to Fietcaer and 'hio solicitors for moneys hold 'by him in trust on behalf of Fletcher from November, 1915, to iVLarch Hath, 1916. although repeatedly requested in writing to do so. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Doiuiiston, Mr Justice Cooper, Mr Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Hosking. Mr H. P. Von Haast appeared for the Law Society, and Dr Fitchett and Mr A. A, Biair for Lundon. Lundon, in course of cross-cxamina-. 'tion, said that he had been asked by the Law Society for a statement of the work done in connection with the. Fletcher affair. He had not furnished the statement, because while ho was engaged in preparing it his health broke down. Ho, however, sent in an explanation to the society in October, 1916. -He accepted the .£IOO fee from Fletcher on tne understanding that he would act for Fletcher without further payment, while ho held any of the JMOO, which he was obtaining tor Fletcher from the bank. Fletcher had himself made various attempts to get the money without avail. On his first visit to the bank ho had met with a very cool reception, and was told that the bank wanted to have nothing to do with Fletcher. The manager was at that time aware that the father-in-law of Fletcher was likely to bring an action against the latter for slander. Ho had told Fletcher that in view of the fact that ho had been paid MIOO he would attend to anything connected with the money received from the bank while any portion of it remained in his control, and ho had carried out that bar. gain. If ho had had to go to the Supremo Court to obiain the money, ho could not have expected a penny more than the Jlltt), even if the action had cost more. Ho worked for Fletcher for ten solid months, and never charged him a penny. He took the money from Fletcher in the form of a loan to prevent its being dissipated by Fletcher. To Dr Fitchett, witness said that Fletcher stated to him that the money was not intended to be on fixed deposit, and was very positive about it. He thought it would probably bo necessary to sue the bank, and if the matter had gone to the Supremo Court, he would have had to brief counsel. Fletcher had paid witness a =£33 cheque, which was afterwards dishonoured, as a retainer fee for the slander action which was expected to bo brought by the father-in-law. In spite of the fact that the cheque was dishonoured ho was nrepared to carry on the .defence in consideration of the .£lO9 Fletcher had given him. He had treated the .£IOO as covering also his defence of Fletcher on a charge of attempting to shoot his father-in-law. When an action against him for the recovery of money was pending, the solicitors for the plaintiff filed a motion, which was heard before Mr Justice Cooper, for an order for the taking of accounts. His Honour dismissed the motion, and expressed the opinion that the action appeared to be one for settlement between the parries. His solicitor promptly wrote to the other side, drawing attention to the remark, and stab ing that witness was quite prepared to settle the matter, and to refer any dispute about the ,£IOO to the taxing master, the registrar, or anv practitioner fa Auckland. Witness did not want the money which he obtained from the bank for any purposes of his own. Ho only purposed to protect Fletcher from being robbed by certain persons who wero notorious in the Police Court at Auckland. Ho placed the money in his trust account. The case was adjourned until to-day.