CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1302, 29 March 1883, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

Wc do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents]. :o: TO THE EDITOR. ; Sir,- With your kind permission I beg to i reply tu Mr Priestley s letter which appeared in the columns of your issue of the 24th. In the first place Mr Priestley’s proper i course to adopt in reference to the conduct of ■ the various professional men referred to, is to . make a report to the Law Society, and to present a petition to the Chief Justice for an enquiry. Next as to proceeding with the investigation of the accounts before the Registrar of the Supreme Court, let an application be made to the Judge in Chambers, supported by affidavit, detailing what has taken place since the decree was granted, and f<»r instructions to the Registrar to continue his enquiries, and if the Registrar hesitates or ret uses to act, let him be attached for contempt. As to Mr Robinson’s detention of Mr Finn’s account, Mr Robinson has no lien on that document. This gentleman knows, or ought to know, that the law of lien does not apply under such circumstances. I am surprised at any professional man throwing up his client’s business when in funds un account of the “ intemperate habits ”of his client. Surely, if such objectionable proclivities were a sufficient cause for parting company with Priestly, they were a sufficient reason why Mr Finn should at least have hesitated before taking a conveyance in blank from an ignorant and intemperate man like his client. Query—Who is the man Johnson ? Where a solicitor has moneys of his client in hand, neither in law or equity is he justified iu throwing him up at a critical juncture on account of “ intemperate habits.” If the man was un unfortunate inebriate tho greater reason for his affairs being under the control of a competent Solicitor for the sake of those dependant on him. Moralists may talk about the evils of strong drink, but the lawyer is not a moralist. His duty is to attend to the interests of his client. I would like to ask, has Mr Finn in the Course of his professional career ever appeared in a Court as Solicitor in defence of a person charged with having been “drunk and disorderly ? ’ If so, did lie refuse the fee tendered to him by the man of “intemperate habits?” In conclusion, if Priestly could by means of his friends, raise a few pounds he might probably, by pursuing a vigorous policy, recover a substantial part of his former estate, or make matters exceedingly unpleasant for the parties concerned.—Yours, etc., Gibson K. Turton. TO THE EDITOR, Sir,--Seeing a letter signed H. M. Wilson in the correspondence column of the Tuesday’s : Standard, ’regarding the accident to the , vehicle on the Makaraka road on Monday, I ' wish to make a few remarks. I think Mr Wilson’s spleen should not have carried him so fur us to call any person an “Ass ” through ; the columns of the Press, for merely making a mistake in using the term “bus” instead i of “brake,” as Mr Wilson chooses to term it, hut J say it is neither, it is merely a drag ; and really of two men, I do not know which iis the “ Ass one that can compile a letter ! for himself, or one who has got to uet another ■ person to compile one for him, He goes on ! t<> say that the ladies were not bnrsed ; but : that they knew best themselves, and they ' did not seem inclined to risk themselves in i any of Mr S. M. Wilson’s vehicles on the return journey, as I met them walking home, until a good Samaratan iu a spring trap over- ! took them, and kindly conveyed them to • town. By inserting the above you will oblige Veritas.