CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1219, 7 December 1882, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

I We Jo not hn’d ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents]. TO THE EDITOR. I Dear Sir,—Of all the shabby and mean defences to a fair and just claim 1 have ever ! heard of, Mr Rees's, in the action Gould v. ’ Rees, is the shabbiest and meanest. To think ; that a solicitor, who is a gentleman, at least . by Act of Parliament, should coolly get into j the witness-box and deny owing Mr Gould a I penny for salary, or anything else, after the i evidence of the latter, and the production of j the books of Mr Rees, showing certain i amounts debited to Mr Gould's salary auI count, &c., is simply disgraceful ; he must, as I heard a man say to-day, lave a good I front on him. Why, what is the profession coining to, i when such men are allowed to practice, and endeavor to keep a clerk out af his just and i proper claim ; and, I may state, his only means of subsistence? In Mr Gould’s evi--1 deuce (as reported in your valuable columns) i he states lie was engaged by Mr Rees in 1878 as clerk, and subsequently became articled ; that Rees promised him a salary ; that if he ; worked well his salary would be raised ; that ' he had sole charge of Rees's Napier office for | over six months ; that he had received some moneys on account of salary ; and that he had served Mr Rees as a faithful clerk until the 17th November last, on which date some £O7 odd was due him, which sum Mr Ree promised to pay, but, after breaking several appointments and promises, and I suppose finding it rather inconvenient, says, “ No, I owe you nothing : you are my articled clerk, and not entitled to any salary.” This has been done before by Mr Rees ; he avoided paying poor White and Mclntosh about £l2O in salary in the same way. Mr Gould further states he made out an account, and went through it with Mr Day, Mr Rees’s managing clerk, who afterwards seems to have signed the same as correct; but Mr Day is afterwards brought into the box, and states “ I have no recollection of signing any account /•e Gould. If 1 did, I had no authority for doing so." Very convenient to forget these little matters Mr Day. I notice Rees also has a bad memory for some things. After reading the above who can be surprised that the profession is being degraded, and losing that high respect it should always command and maintain. If Mr Rees had had a spark of manhood in him surely he would have paid Gould a bonus for actual work done, and not have resorted to such an unmanly defence. If he had made a bet on a race and did not pay up the remedy would be posting him ; so in this case, I venture to say, he will be posted in every Supreme Court Office in the Colony, so that everybody may know the way he pays his clerks. Great praise is due to our worthy R. M. for the verdict given by him, and his remarks thereon. All the gentlemen of the legal profession here, including the articled clerks, should stand by and assist Mr Gould ; and should give such defence as Rees’s a wide berth, and not let people think they recognise or endorse it. —Yours, &c., Articled Law Clerk.