GUILTY OF MALPRACTICE

NZ Truth, Issue 1196, 1 November 1928, Page 4

GUILTY OF MALPRACTICE

Inder Accepts Blame and Partner Is Exonerated By Court

(From "N.Z. Truth's" Special Christchurch Representative.)

Following on the unsavory Batchelor affair, another blow Was dealt at the stability of the legal profession m Christchurch last week, when the Canterbury Law Society proceeded against Samuel Ernest McCarthy, solicitor and ex-magistrate, and his partner, Percival Louis Cribb Inder, a young solicitor, for their failure to bank trust moneys as prescribed by the act governing the operations of lan> practitioners.

FOR McCarthy the experience was a galling- one. Many, many times, throughout various provinces of Ne^v Zealand, had he sat m a judicial capacity. And m the evening of his life it was his misfortune to find that the delinquencies of his partner had caused the accusing 1 finger of the law to be pointed m his direction. To Inder's credit, it can be said that lie took the entire responsibility and m. no way endeavored to implicate his senior partner m his illegal transactions m connection with trust moneys handled by the firm. Inder is one of the younger set of solicitors practising m Christchurch. A product of Canterbury College, he served for some time with the Public Trust Office and after a brief spell with another firm, he was taken into partnership by McCarthy. To say the least, the combination was regarded at the time as unusual — McCarthy; an elderly man, m the sere and yellow, and Inder, a young and inexperienced solicitor; he was then only 23 years of age. „'■■■.' -

Inder has on more than one oc-casipn.-been prominently before the public; the last time j being about eighteen months ago, when *he was cited as co-respondent m the Wallis divorce case, the hearing of which was commenced, but which was settled by the parties without judicial assistance. As the result of "information received," the Law Society conducted an inquiry into McCarthy and Inder's methods of handling trust

moneys and discovered a shortage of some £240> which had not been

banked, though it wa^ claimed by the defendant, Inder, •that a sum of £60 was due tdi the: firm for costs which had not been charge.d. to clients.

With very little experience, Inder undertook the financial administration of the business and it is apparent that his partner left it very 'much to him, knowing little of what was going on.

When they came before the court, McCarthy was entirely exonerated, but Inder was found . guilty of the- malpractice with which he was charged and fined £20.

' McCarthy made good the shortage and dissolved the partnership. ; Any further action, so. far as Inder

Real Punishment

Costs had not been got m and the ■m found itself short of capital; some oney which should have been paid to the bank was used for expenses. Counsel submitted that the fact that ceipts had been given made it obous that there was no intention to fraud. As the result of the Law Society's vestigation, the amount of the shorte had been paid m. ■ • Inder had instructed counsel that he took all responsibility and that counsel was m no. way to criticise his partner, McCarthy. Defendant recognized- that the Law iciety, m its disciplinai-y powers, was und to prosecute for the benefit and otection of the public. He regretted that his client had failto observe the provisions of the Act, lic'h, he declared, were observed m c vast majority of cases. Counsel submitted that the trouble is due to lack of system and the apication of business methods m the ■' firm's financial dealings. Inder was young ito undertake t^he responsibility and counsel asked for

""""""" "—-~~-— "■"""■-"" leniency as far as possible. The partnership had been dissolved and Inder had rendered himself liable to the full disciplinary powers of the Law Society through his conduct.

Any penalty which might be inflicted by the society was the real punishment for the offence.

inder's hopes of success m the profession were ruined.

On account of his. poor financial position, counsel again pressed for leniency.

Before decision was given' by the magistrate, the case against McCarthy was heard.

McCarthy, obviously feeling his position very keenly, pleaded not guilty when the three charges against him were read by the ,clerk.

Lawyer Gresson informed the court that these cases were different from those brought against Inder, but the society held that there was a prima facie case against the partnership.

Percy N. Quartermain, a public accountant, gave evidence to the effect that the three amounts mentioned m the charges against McCarthy had been received and l'eceipts issued from the. trust account receipt-book, but the sums had not been paid into the bank.