THE LUNDON CASE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9794, 18 October 1917, Page 10

THE LUNDON CASE

. - , FURTHER. ARGUMENT. TELE CASE ADJOURNED. Tho case in which John _ Raphael ' Lundon, barrister and solicitor, of Auckland, was called upon to answer allegations of professional misconduct wins continued in tho Appeal Court yesterday. ■ It was alleged that on or about January 24th Lundon mad© a gross overcharge of £IOO against a* client, Joseph Fletcher, of Auckland, labourer, for his services in obtaining pre-payment from the National Bank of Now Zealand, at Newton, of a sum of £SOO lodged by Fletcher with the bank on fixed deposit. It was further alleged that Lundon persistently failed to account to Fletcher and his solicitors for moneys held by him in trust on behalf of Fletcher from November, ISXIS. to March. 2Sbh, 1916,. although repeatedly . requested in writing to do so.

The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Dcnuiston, Mr Justice Cooper, Mr Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Hosting. Mr H. F. von Haast appeared for the Law Society, and Dr Fitehott and Mr A. A. Blair for Lundon. Lundon, under further examination, stated that he kept a separate general trust account, and he had placed Fletcher's money in this account. So that it could not be said that Fletcher suffered by the money being relieved from fixed deposit, ho arranged to pay Si per cent, for the time he beld tho money out of the £IOO he received. He wanted to protect the man from (being robbed, as he had been drinking, and could not ho trusted with the ■money.

To Mr Justice Chapman: His trust account was subject to audit under the statute, and he held a clear audit up to the day he had been suspended. His Honour; “Was that account continuously in credit to an amount equal to at least the money held for this man?”

Lundon: “Beyond all question.” Air von Haast: “Why could you have not deposited this money in your owi) name, bearing interest?” X/undon: “What would have happened to me then?—the very attack made on me noiv.”

“Why should you pay 5} per cent, interest' when tho bank was only paying 3J on tbe fixed deposit?”—“l was taking steps to protect myself from any unjust aspersion.” Mr Justice Chapman: “The interest was paid in a lump sum at the time a settlement was made.”

Lundon went on to remark that within two or three months of the money being handed' over to Fletcher it had all gone in drink, and the man’s wife was starving.” Dr Fitohett: “With reference to thus interest at 5j per cent., did Fletcher ever give you any instructions as to how you wer© to apply that money?”—“Ho did in writing. It was to be applied to the wife’s imiaintenanoe, and it has been so applied.” *

Mr ton Haast then addressed the court, questioning the steps taken by Lundon avowedly to protect hia client against himself. According to the statement made to tho Law Society bv Lundon, Fletcher was by no means devoid of intelligence, but ho was afflicted with a consuming thirst. Fletcher had been drinking, and want ed £l5O in a hurry to go on a trip to Sydney to avoid a threatened action for slander by hi s father-in-law. The money was only to bo obtained by breaking the deposit with the National Bank of Now Zealand, and the easiest process was for London to have an interview with the manager immediately, for which a small fee would have sufficed. .But, instead, he worked the bargain to get £IOO for himself, and he also got a cheque for fifty guineas in connection with the slander action. , Dr. Fitchctt argued that all the facts went to show that the broad result of the transactions concerning Fletcher had been concluded in his favour, so that no' charge of misconduct could lie. If there had been an overcharge it was a matter for taxation. Lundon’s solicitor had proposed that it should go to taxation and when that was not accepted a proposal was sub. soquently made that tho case should be submitted to tho arbitration of any professional man in Auckland. As to not furnishing accounts tbe answOh was that Lundon throughout treated tho matter as a loan. " It was ultimately not a matter or trusteeship but of debtor and creditor. It was a trust in tho first instance, but the arrangement was changed, - and £350 was placed on loan with Lundon for eighteen months at a specified rate of interest, the express purpose being that Fletcher should not have control of it. Tho whole business was in Fletcher’s interest.

Mr Justice Denniston: “All these statements are Mr Lundon’s.”

Dr. Fitchett: But they are supported by facts. Mr Blair afterwards addressed tho court on behalf of Lundon.

Argument had not concluded when the court rose.