MOTION TO STRIKE A WELLINGTON SOLICITOR OFF THE ROLLS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2247, 18 March 1886, Page 2

MOTION TO STRIKE A WELLINGTON SOLICITOR OFF THE ROLLS.

(From the Evening Press.) A sitting of the Banco Court was held yesterday morning before his Honor Judge Richmond. BE EDWABU SHAW, SOLICITOR.^ Mr Edward Shaw Solicitor, of $&-•' lington appeared on behalf of Mr E.<' Shaw, and said that his client had filed': an affidavit this morning, and he wai', scarcely prepared to go, into the argument L oi the case, which was of a serious nature 1 as affecting tho status of a gentleman in the legal profession, and he hoped hia learned friend would agrco to a postponement of the case. There had also been a delay through the absence from the documentary file of the attachment of the ordinary summons in the caso heard before the Resident Magistrate's Court. Mr Jellicoe contended that it was My Biiavs lauit it the document had not been attached. There had ,been plenty of time, and the summons referred to had been m Mr Shaw's own possession until recently. He urged that ho might be allowed to state his case, and then if his learned friend wished for an adjournment tho Court might consider the appU-i' cation. Mr Travers said ho had not had an opportunity of reading all the papers in connection with the case till yesterday. His Honor remarked that that was reasonable exouse for Mr Travers, but not for his client. He held that Mr Jellicoo had every right to proceed with his c£l whatever course the Court might vm afterwards. There had evidently been gross neglect on tho part of the othe* Bide.

Mr Jellicoe then formally moved thai the name of the solicitor should be struck off the roll pn the application of Mr Henry Stevenß, of Masterton,- He then went on to give tho particulars of the case, whereby it appeared .that.Mr K Shaw, retained by Mr Stevens, in m action against the Wairarapa East County Council, obtained the sum of. £lO from Mr Stevens for disbursement? in connect tion with the case. These'disbursements it subsequently turned out had not been made, nor were Mr Stevens' instructions carried out by Mr E, Shaw as to the hearing of the case and the serving; of : > summonses, Further, Mr Stevens coulcj' not recover the £IOO from Mr E, Shaw when he found that tho. had jnot, been entered, as he had instructed, On tho 9th December, Mr Stevens received » telegram from Mr E. Shaw to the effect that no adjournment in his case had been . fronted, and asked fov 15 guineas to bV wired to him for attendance, Previous' to the date for tho hearing ofjA'a"; case in Masterton Mr Stevens - two interviews with-Mr E, Shaw, the latter of which Mr E, Shaw;' sa(cV : that lie like, the case,; 1 'agaia ■:'■■■ adjourned from, the lßth to the following. ' Monday or Tuesday. In fact a series of ■ adjournments took place for Mr E. Shaw's, convenience, and when the case did come on, Mr Stevens'was found to be um|o ; , fended, and had to employ a Mr who again applied for an adjournment to enable Mr Shaw to attend to his pwn work. Subsequently Mr Shaw returned the papers of tlio'case after the filing o{ the affidavit, but not a sixpence of tho money. Then Mr Shaw. farther with, held the papers until furtrW fees, w,era paid to him, yet at that tins tho cost! were due to the Official Assignee, and it was fonnd also that Mr Shaw was claim., ing that he had employed Mr Skipper on behalf on Mr Stevens. These were the. features of the case, and he. (Mr Jellicoe) would simply quote cases bearing on the points to show that there had been conduct on the part of Mr E, Shaw asJa warrant the application he was auppffll >■'■ ing,

Mr Jelllcoe proceeded to quoto authorities bearing on the case. He said that the Court could not but say tl]at Mr Shaw's conduct in the matter under consideration had been of such a nature that it'would .be bound, however much the act might be regretted, to inflict such penalty as would vindicate the honor of ,' the proloßsion and serve as a warning to' othorg. !;: ' ' i • . , j^Bit%,]