On 8th July 1905 C D renewed his application to the Court by presenting the present petition, which however set forth no new circumstance save that eleven years had now elapsed since the date of his offence, and that the petitioner had left the employment of Mr Andrews, solicitor, Edinburgh, in May 1904 after being with him a period of eight years. No letters or certificates of character were annexed to this petition, but reference was made to the previous one and the documents connected with it, and the Court was reminded of the certificates which were then produced.
The petition was ordered to be served upon the Incorporated Society of Law-Agents in Scotland, and the Society appeared to oppose, and lodged answers. In the answers it was averred that no change of circumstances had taken place to warrant the renewed application, and it was stated that the Society had received from the President of the Society of Procurators of Midlothian an excerpt of a minute of a meeting of the Council of that Society held on 2nd June 1905 stating that the Council was, after careful consideration, unanimously of opinion that it would not be in the interests of the profession that the petitioner's application be granted and therefore disapproved thereof.
The petitioner stated at the bar that in the previous application the Lord President had apparently thought the petitioner wished admission to the Society of Law—Agents. The petitioner did not wish admission to any society, but merely to be again on the register of enrolled law-agents. That, in the circumstances, the Court might allow, and the prayer of the petition should therefore be granted— A B v. Incorporated Society of Law-Agents , July 9, 1895, 22 R. 877, 32 S.L.R. 660; re William Unwin , 1882, 72 L.T. 388; in re Robins , 1865, 34 L. J.
Q.B. 121; Anonymous , 1853, 17 Beavan, 475.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the petition should be refused. There were few cases of a solicitor getting his name restored to the register, and that only in exceptional circumstances which did not exist here. There was no case where forgery was the offence— Garbett , 1856, 18 C.B. 403.
At advising—
Lord President —In this petition for readmission as a law-agent we are called upon to discharge what is always a delicate and sometimes a painful duty. The application is not the first made by the petitioner, because a similar application made by him was refused in 1901. I think I am stating no more than the fact when I say that since the date of that judgment there has been no change of circumstances even alleged except the change operated by the efflux of a certain portion of time. It is a fair consideration for your Lordships whether what may have been considered premature at that time is now any longer premature. Upon the general principles which should guide us I do not think there can be much room for doubt. On the one hand we have to guard very carefully the purity of the roll of law-agents who are admitted to practise before the Courts of this country.
Page: 752 ↓
Lord Kinnear —I have come with regret to the same conclusion for the reasons your Lordship has given.
Lord M'Laren concurred.
Lord Adam was not present.
The Court refused the petition.
Counsel and Agent for the Petitioner— Party.
Counsel for the Respondents— Hunter. Agents— Carment, Wedderburn, & Watson, W.S.