TRUST FUNDS

Taranaki Daily News, 21 September 1921, Page 5

TRUST FUNDS

A SOLICITOR IN TROUBLE. ADMISSION OF GUILT LARGE SUM INVOLVED. By Telegraph Press Auckland, Last Night. “He has been most candid and most helpful since matters came to a crisis,” declared Mr. H. P. Richmond, president of the Auckland Law Society, at the Supreme Court to-day, when dealing with the case of Arthur Cracknell, the surviving partner of the legal firm of Hammond and Cracknell, Auckland. The matter before the Court, His Honor Mr. Justice Adams presiding, was an application by the Law Society for a rule nisi calling upon Cracknell to answer certain allegations and show cause why he should not be struck off the roll of solicitors or suspended from practising as a solicitor.

Cracknell has signed the following “solemn declaration, conscientiously believing same to be true”: “I, Arthur Cracknell, of Auckland, ' solicitor, do solemnly and sincerely declare: (1.) I was a member of the firm of Hammond and Cracknell, solicitors, practising at Auckland; (2) the said firm received from Messrs. Mahony, Sons and Dignan, solicitors, on behalf of Oliver Reed, of Auckland, retired farmer, the sum of three thousand pounds (£3000); (3) that the firm used this money for its own private purposes and failed to use it for the purposes for which it was obtained; (4) that this user was with* out the knowledge or consent of the said Oliver Reed; (5) that there ware many other similar cases of obtaining and using of clients’ trust funds; (&) that this user of clients’ trust moneys was made with the knowledge and consent of both partners in most cases: (7) that there is now in the trust account of the firm a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds ( £250); (8) that the funds of clients’ amounting to at least ten thousand pounds ( £lO,000) have been so misapplied by the said firm or partners thereoif.” Other affidavits alleged that Cracknell was sworn, admitted and enrolled at Auckland as a solicitor on May 20, 1912; that on September 6, 1921, he frankly admitted that he had been guilty of breaches of trust in connection with the trust account of the firm; and further, that on September 14, 1921, ho was adjudicated bankrupt. The application by the Law Society raised allegations against Cracknell in the terma’ of the declaration, adding that neither Cracknell nor the firm of Hammond and Cracknell had since accounted for tins trust moneys to the persons entitled to them.

Mr. Richmond remarked that His Honor had read the affidavits, and it was unnecessary to elaborate on the facts in any way. No affidavits had been filed in answer by Cracknell Cbunsel said it was really upon Cracknell’s own declaration and admission of the facts that the proceedings had been taken.

His Honor: “He has been very open and frank.”

Mr. Richmond suggested that defendant might be given leave to file affidavits if he so desired. It was possible the state of affairs might he better than Cracknell thought. “It is possible, bttt I do not say it is so,” added Mr. Richmond.

His Honor: “At any rate it is clearly a case in which he should have full opportunity of presenting his views.” Discussion followed as to the correct procedure to be followed, His Honor remarking that happily for the profession it was somewhat unique for a solicitor to be called upon in that way. A rule nisi was granted calling upon Cracknell to appear before the Auckland Supremo Court on Tuesday, September 27, to answer the allegations, or be struck off the rolls or suspended from practice.