THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. EDWARD SHAW.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2262, 5 April 1886, Page 2

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. EDWARD SHAW.

In the Banco Court on Saturday, before iMr Justice Richmond, the case in which v Mr Edward Shaw was called uponUsW cause why he should not bo strucLj«\a rolls, was called on. His Honor, in giving his decision inthe case, said: Well, I have made up my mind in this matter. It ia not a which I ought to send to the Appeal. lam not proposing to rehearse i the whole of the details of this case, . which would take me a long time. ' The complaint is that MrSha,v received two sums of money-ono of £lO and the other of 15 guineas, and that he has not returned the monoy, and has d«ne nothing to earn it. The sum of £lO was the first sum paid, and it was paid to meet the expenses out of pocket in an action which Mr Stevens contemplated agaiiist tho County Council of Wairarapa East. In . regard to that sum, all that is said 'iii'hig - affidavit is this" I havo since ascorI tained that Mr Shaw has not taken any , stop to commence tho action, nor. , has-,ho ! entered tho action, and has totally failed ! to return the monoy to mo." The answer given to that on the part of Mr Shaw is, | that in tho first place full instructions from Mr Stephens reached him too lata tocommenco an action in. tho District Court at the then sittings, which were fixed for tho 10th of September, and after-' wards adjourned till the 16tli Decombeiy andhocould notcommencewithoutconsent • . of tho solicitors of the County C(U»t who refused to accept service, Hen® \ foro advised his client to commence an action in tho Supreme Court at tho Jan. ■ - uary sittings, and. ho had a draft statement of claim to be used in the Suprrcj Court, and in the meantime his insolvMa supervened. But 1 was forgetting™ intermediate proceeding. On the 19th December ho received a demand mado on behalf of Mr Stephens for the delivery of all papers. On the 6th of January he files his declaration of insolvency/ and therefore it is apparent that ho would bo : unablo to return tho £lO, Ho had dono something towards earning it, according to his own evidence, but not much. But he was prevented by his insolvency from returning the money, lam not pretending to enter into all the minutiw of tho case, but that is the general state of tho facts regarding the sum of £lO, and that has not been so very much pressed by tho prosecuting party as the other sum-the "■ 15 guineas. That sum was paid at a later • m period-on the 9th December, aiid itwa* paid in advance for Mr Shaw's appeargoce: to defend Mr Stevens against an. afljfction summons in the District before Justices—l dont know which—at - Wairarapa. Mr Shaw undoubtedly did! \- not attend to his client but then the excuse is severe Mj. Shaw has swem that he was attended at tho time by two physicians, and that he was suffering from disorder of considerable severity, so that he was clearly unablo to attend. Tho allegation in regard to thoso 1 15 guineas iB contained in the' 16th paragraph of Mr Steven's affidavit—" For the * reasons aforesaid I say that when he J' obtained tho sum of 15 guineas he woftT knew that ho would not attend at Mas- ' terton and dared not leave his residence, for fear of arrest, and that ho obtained tho money by falso, pretoncea.." As regards tho possibility of attendance owing to the fear of arrest, I think that the fact of his being privileged as a barrister would have enabled him ..to go and return upon his business. At tity same time I think'it very likely that'he: was strongly indisposed to claim tho' privilege, which involves a very unpleas->. ■ ant publicity. Still, it is not true that ho was absolutely unable to leave/ hia residence for fear of arrest, because , ttrnt.;' privilege existed.. But then there is |t3fj oxcuse of severe illness, which is depp2BL en oath. There is .no doubt that it W probable that on the lfltli of Decfember,' when Mr Shaw so urgently applied for the payment of his fee, he might have felt there was a faint'prospect of being able to attend during tho next week','"' * and it resolves itself into a question q{ motivo and secret intention, and there- \ fore I need not say lam bound to put > not the worst, but the beat, construction on a ipan's actions, I think that 1 , this charge of false pretence is not supported by sufficient evidence. Another serious Imputation has been made this mom* ing, but it has been denied, upon'oath, therefore it does not enter into the pre»> ! sent case at all. It is a mutter collateral to the charge, and, in fact, is in Itself a more serious charge than anything con. j tained in the affidavit, It is denied upon ?. oath, and I must accept the denial 'And, 1 ! looking at the whole case, I am of opinion,( that suffloiont ground for suspension . not been mado out, nor are there any . grounds established for. a removal from?, 1 the rolls. A practitioner who hai received [' ' moneys and has done little or nothing'to? earn it, and afterwards becomes insolvent is no doubt in an exceedingly painfull position. Solicitors, like other pera6fl& aro subject to insolvency, but I dotf not think a failure to perform a duty which is occasioned by insolvency o ®,, \ of necessity a ground for a removal frosff v the rolls. The judgment will be, there-/, ■ fore, that the rule is discharged.'' It W' j a rule nisi granted by His Honor the M Chief Justice. ■' ■