|
|
Mr. J. Swales
Hull based Solicitor, Mr. Swales, was instructed, to represent Judge Simpson, and also to act, (unlawfully) on behalf of Mrs. West, as agent for the Treasury Solicitor, in my action against them. He also acted for Mrs. West, in my separate action, against her, after the action against them both, was unlawfully struck out, by District Judge Weston. He, acting upon instructions from Mr. Shepheard, in the name of the Treasury Solicitor, had made the application to have that action struck out, on false grounds, at Hull Combined Court Centre, and I find it very difficult to believe that he did not realize that he was acting unlawfully, by representing Mrs. West, albeit upon instructions, and he really ought not to have accepted the invitation to represent them. Of course, Mr. Swales was aware of the implications, if I had happened to be successful: he must have been quite confident that he could get away with acting upon Mr. Shepheard's unlawful instructions; confident that I would not be allowed to win, because of those implications
He probably learnt a lot from Mr. Shepheard, because my separate later, action, against Mrs. West, was also unlawfully struck out, with him at the helm. He also maintained Mrs. West's silence, by serving her purported, Defence, in answer to the separate action against her, without her providing one single particular, that answered the the allegations, and clearly stated known facts, in the Statement of Claim, on which the Claim relied, once more, contrary to the rules of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Swales has possession of Mrs. West's original shorthand books, which he has steadfastly refused to release, for forensic examination, so I believed him, when he informed me that he intended to represent Mrs. west, to the best of his ability. I would have preferred him to have informed me, that he intended to represent her to the best of his ability, in a lawful manner.
He has served an affidavit upon me, in which he has sworn, that there is clearly a triable issue, in my separate action, against his client: Mrs. West, but that sworn statement did not hinder him from having the case, against her, unlawfully struck out, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. If an action is sworn to contain a clearly triable issue. I do not understand how the swearer, can then apply to the Court to have the action struck out, on the ground, that there is no reasonable cause of action: perhaps Mr. Swales can explain. He is also well aware that it has been held, in the High Court, that corrupt acts, where damage has been stated in the claim, is triable in a Civil Court, as well as in a Criminal one.