Mr Bell admitted that some of the firm's acts were indefensible, but contended that Mr George Harper was not criminally or even dishonorably responsible for those acts. His client, however, must always be civilly responsible for those wrong acta of the firm, and in this lespect would always have a millstone round his neck. | Beyond all question there had been, fraudulentconduct on the part ©f the firm, but none on the part of Mr G. Harper personally, who was in the hands of de ign ing and clever people. Mr Bell then pro ceeded todeal exhaustively with the various charges made against the firm, and to show that Mr George Harper's connec- • lion with irregularities was due purely j and simply to unintentional negligence. It was something uf importance he thought that members of the profession and the Canterbury Law Society did not feel ashamed to associate with Mr HaTper since the revelations, and this fact should have some weight in determining the decision of the Court. It should also be mentioned that since the failure, Mr George Harper had suspended himself from practice. Mr Fisher, who represented the Canter bury Law Society, said that he appeared in the case with a great sense of re sponsibility to discharge a very un pleasant duty. He submitted that a solicitor was responsible to the Court for his whole conduct, and he took exception to the doctrine that he was not to be struck off the rolls unless he could be shown personally responsible for, and to have personally profited by, a fraud. "What was charged against Mr George Harper was misconduct and breach of duty as a solicitor to his clients in the transfer of moneys (£30,000) subject to trusts, and the transfer of properties to the bank which were also subject to trusts. The Chief Justice asked whether it was held that Mr Harper was cognisant of the trusts when he executed the transfer. Mr Fisher said that he did not hold this, but he did hold that Mr HaTper should have known of the trusts, and ehould have made enquiries if he did not know. 