Lists (None yet)

Login to create lists

Comments (None yet)

Add New Comment

3 corrections, most recently by gstew - Show corrections


Mr. MURRAY, acting for Mr. Holroyd, moved that the conditional admission of Mr. Wilkinson Grantham (on the last day of the fourth term of 1852) be con- firmed by the Court. In making this application, the

learned gentleman guarded himself by stating that he   took upon himself no personal responsibility with re- ference to it, adding that he had no hesitation in mak- ing this statement, inasmuch as he had told Mr, Hol- royd that he would do so.

Mr. Grantham, who appeared in the Court, and was

obviously in a state of intoxication, stated in reply to   a question from the CHIEF JUSTICE, that he had issued two processes during the past year, one through Mr.

Cory and the other through Mr. Roberts. His reason,  

he said, for issuing processes through third persons, was that he had no office of his own, his usual place of residence being at Penrith.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL drew the attention of the Court to the apparent condition of Mr. Grantham.

Ultimately it was ordered that this investigation with reference to this gentleman's conduct, which had

been already directed, should be at once proceeded   with by the Prothonotary; and an entry made as to     the condition in which Mr. Grantham had appeared

before the Court. Wednesday next was then     appointed for this enquiry.  


The special Application, on petition, of Mr. William     Hellyer for admission as an attorney, solicitor, and   proctor of the Supreme Court, was now taken into


Messrs. BROADHURST and DARVALL appeared in support of the petition; and the Attorney-General, who represented many of the leading attorneys, op- posed it.

The grounds of the application were these. Mr. Hellyer, who had been for five years and a half a cer- tificated conveyancer, had also been for nearly twelve years employed by the late Mr. Carr, an attorney of the Court, and during the greater portion of that time had been entrusted with the management of Mr. Carr's business. On the 4th of March last Mr. Carr died very suddenly, leaving a great mass of legal busi- ness in a pending state. At this time Mr. Hellyer was under articles of clerkship to Mr. Carr and had served some fifteen or sixteen months under those articles, having also served some five ' months under articles in another office prior to entering into the office of Mr. Carr. His whole term of articled clerkship, therefore, was considerably under two years; whereas the rule of clerkship required a term of five years. But the application was based upon grounds of alleged exigency. It was averred, 1. That the interests of his clients would suffer if Mr. Hellyer was not admitted, inasmuch, as from this gentleman's tho- rough acquaintance avith the business, there was no other person competent to deal with the various pend- ing cases. 2 That the Widow of Mrs. Carr was equally desirous of having Mr. Hellyer admitted, so that he might be in a position to wind up the business of her late husband. 3. That the clients, also, were equally anxious, and had all left their business in abeyance to await the decision of the Court   in this matter, except one person, avho was desirous to have a particular  

matter settled before his return to Europe. Certifi- cates as to good character and competency were at- tached ; the latter bearing the signatures of the Solici- tor-General, the Master in Equity, and six members of the bar. The statements of the applicant were also verified by Mr. Carr's late partner, Mr. Owen, and by the widow ; the latter also verifying another statement by Mr. Hellyer to the effect that it had been in con- templation to admit him to a share of Mr. Carr's


Testimony was likewise borne by the Primary Judge (Mr. Justice Therry) to the zeal and ability of Mr.

Hellycr in the equity brunch of the Court's jurisdic- tion, where he conducted many cases. His Honor also added that, as most members of the profession turned their attention chiefly to the common law pra- tico, there was somewhat more of need for additional practitioners in equity than at common law. Mr. Hellyer's own statement as to his arrangement with Mr. Carr was that the latter should give him during his clerkship an interest in the business, and at the expiration of the term, or in the event of death should leave him the business altogether. And but for the sudden death of Mr. Carr, he had no doubt that that gentleman would have fully kept his word.

A reference having been made to the Prothonotary, that officer reported in favour of the application ; find- ing that the assertions in the petition had been verified, and that there were precedents which, in the Protho- notary's opinion, would warrant the Court in granting the application.

The precedents relied upon in support of this appli-   cation were those of several gentlemen admitted in this colony in March, 1847, and some cases which had occurred in the Irish Courts, (one being that of Mr. John Dillon, a Sydney practitioner,) where parties who had not served the necessary period of clerkship had been admitted attorneys because of the death of relatives with an arrear of business which none but the persons thus admitted could manage with efficiency, and with a due regard to the interests of the clients. It was further contended that, by the New South  

Wales Act, the 10th clause of the Charter of Justice, and the inherent common law right of the Court to admit its own practitioners, and to regulate its own practice, the Court had a clear power to deal with this ease, and to admit the applicant upon the ground of expediency.

On the other hand, it was urged, that neither the colonial nor the Irish cases had any application to the present one, for the former were different as to circum- stances ; and as to the latter, there was an express power vested by statute in the Judges and Barons of Ireland to admit any person whom they thought fit, and there was no such power here. A Bombay case was cited from P.C. Rep : 3 : 368, which went to show that the Court there had no power to depart from the strict rule as to the admission of practitioners   also a case from 17th Jurist, 440, to the same effect. The power of the Court to regulate its own practice, &c., was not denied ; but it was contended that the power could only be exercised bv means of rules. That is to say, that there must be rules of Court with a general application, and not a decision in any parti- cular case ; and the making of the rule must invariably precede the decision of a case in favour of an applicant for admission. It was alleged, on the affidavit of Mr. G. Wright, that the applicant had been guilty of act- ing in several cases as an attorney, without authority, and it was contended that it was a breach of his duty as an articled clerk, even to act as a conveyancer, during the term of his clerkship. The arrangement between Mr. Hellyer and the late Mr. Carr, as to the possession by the former during his clerkship of an interest in Mr. Carr's business, was designed as an illegal partnership which ought to weaken his claims to admission. As an articled clerk, it was contended, he was bound to attend to the final arragement of his master's business, even although the latter was dead, and there were many attorneys ready and competent to undertake this business, under whom the applicant could renew his articles, and continue to manage as heretofore. The application, therefore, was one solely for the benefit of Mr. Hellyer himself, and not for that of the clients ; consequently it was not entitled to have any weight attached to it by the Court.

In reply it was urged that this Court had express powers given to it to deal with such a case as this:-that the rule or order might, and ought to be made as each case which required it arose ; that the applicant, if allowed to make an affi- davit, or if examined viva voce, could fully explain the cases alluded to by Mr. Wright, and prove that gen- tleman to have been in error ; that the agreement to have a payment proportioned to the amount of busi- ness performed was a very different thing from a part- nership, but whether legal or illegal, it was clear that this agreement, although made bona fide, had never been acted upon ; and that it avas clearly for the in- terest of the client that Mr. Hellyer should be ad- mitted, as was shoavn by their concurrence in this application.

The Court reserved judgment, with an intimation that the decision would be given on Wednesday morn- ing, if not earlier.



The prisoner had been committed to Darlinghurst Gaol, preparatory to his transmission to VunDiemcn's Land, from avhich place he was said to be a runaavay cona'ict. The prisoner's discharge avas sought by Habeas Corpus, upon titree grounds. 1. That there aa'as no colonial laav avhich avould avarrant an imprison- ment of this nature. 2. That ea'cn if the proceedings avere otherwise regular, there was no legal evidence of the fact aa-ith aa-hich the prisoner aa'as charged. 3. That assuming these difficulties to be got over, the avarrant

of commitment was informal.

Mr. Blake appeared for the prisoner ; and the Soli-

citor-General for the Crown.

The prisoner had been apprehended by Inspector Singleton, of the detective police, on suspicion of being the Oüver Martin who had been ada-ertised as a runaavay coimct front Van Diemen's Land. The only evidence against him at the time of his apprehension avas his resemblance to the advertised description of the absconder. Subsequently, howcA*er, Singleton questioned the prisoner as to some other person, also an escaped convict, who was said to be lia-inç Avith him, remarking that if he gave this information it might be better for him when he got to the other side

(meaning to Van Diemen's Land). Upon this, the prisoner confessed that he was the person alluded to. This confession was given hi evidence ngainst him, but prisoner swore that it wa3 extorted from him without caution, and under the impression that the admission would benefit himself. The prisoner's counsel con i tended that the evidence was not, under the cir-

cumstances, admissible, and consequently there was no legal evidence against the prisoner to warrant his detention. It was ruled, however, that hi whatever way tile fact of this admission was got out before the magistrates, they had a right when it iras got out to take cognisance of it The whole case, turned upon the sufficiency of the return. The return, made hy

j the Governor of Darlinghurst Gaol, Captain Webster,

was to the effect that ho was to hold the man in cus-

tody under a warrant, of which a copy was annexed. Now, there was no formal warrant annexed, but two documents-one nn order under the hand and seal of the "Water Police Magistrate, for the committal of the prisoner to Darlinghurst Gool, until he should be forwarded to Van Diemen's Land ; [ the other an order signed J. M'Lcan, J.P., principal , superintendent of convicts, addressed to the principal

gaoler at Darlinghurst, and directing the detention of the prisoner as a runaway convict from Van Diemen's Land, "until authority could be obtained for his

removal to Hobart Town."

This return their HONOIIS, after hearing arguments , for the Crown, but without calling upon Mr. Blake to

reply, held to be bad, but were of opinion that inas-

much as there was now evidence before them to show

clearly that the prisoner was an escaped convict, it was their duty to direct a remand of their own autho- rity. At the request of Mr. Bluke, however, the final decision was adjourned until Thursday morning, in order to afford time for consideration, as to whether any argument could bo offered against this latter ruling.

Prisoner was accordingly remanded to gaol, with an order (pronounced in open Court) that he be brought up ngain tit ten o'clock on Thursday morning.

Court adjourcd at half-past five P.M., until ton o'clock this morning.

Digitisation generously supported by
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Digitisation generously supported by