MORAL ISSUE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 11 February 1943, Page 4

MORAL ISSUE

RAISED IN CIVIL CASE. OBSERVATIONS BY MAGISTRATE. “If you don’t think a man’s word is worth anything I do,” said Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., to counsel (Mr H. H. Daniell) in the Masterton Magistrate’s Court this morning in the course of a civil case in which E. H. Dagg and others claimed £227 11s from J. A. Betts (as executor of an estate). Mi’ Lawry reserved his decision. Mr Lawry deplored “the growing ■disregard in the community of the policy of honesty.” Only the other day, he said, there was an instance in the Press in which a woman had wrongly collected on a totalisator ticket. The caption to the news item was: “Was she ' lucky?” Surely, said Mr Lawry, it should have been “Was she a thief?” In the case before the court Mr Daniell had raised a moral issue. Mr Betts had entered into a solemn contract in court through the agency of his solicitor. The contract had been broken, continued Mr Lawry, and Mr Betts had broken his word. The court was dealing with a matter of ethics. If a promise had been made, especially through a solicitor, it should be observed. Mr Lawry said he did not wish to hear any more.

Mr Daniell, who appeared for Mr Betts, said he wished to defend his client.

Mr Lawry ordered Mr Daniell to sit down. He said he was not used to being contradicted in court. Mr Daniell stated that an action for devastavit was an accusation that Mr Betts had committed a breach of trust and that Mr Betts must defend himself against such an accusation. Mr Lawry said that in confessing judgment even through his solicitor, Mr Betts had promised to pay and that he had not honoured this promise. Mr Daniell admitted this was so, but contended that any delay in payment was caused by the negotiations which had been carried on.

Mr Lawry said that Mr Betts objected to being accused of a breach of trust, but that his counsel had admitted that he, by his confession, had promised to pay and Mr Betts had broken this promise. Mr Daniell objected, but Mr Lawry declined to hear him further on the point. After hearing the submissions made by Mr R. McKenzie, who appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr Lawry reserved his decision.