1. The charge against the pleader in this case was that, having received two sums of money amounting in all to Rs. 54 from the defendant in a suit in which he was appearing for the plaintiff he misappropriated it and converted it to his own use. The money was received at the end. of 1923. Many demands were made upon him and he did not pay any attention to them. Ultimately some time in 1926 a complaint was launched under the Legal Practitioners Act against the pleader and he. then undoubtedly paid the money and he also put forward an explanation which the District Judge has found to be untrue, namely, that he had been asked by some relation-it is very difficult to make out which-of his client to keep the money in order that it might be utilized in the purchase of stones for the construction of a temple which I think the clients father was supposed to have been building in Sholinghur. Nobody came forward to speak to the story one way or the other. As I say, the learned Judge took the view that it was a mere story invented to stave off the evil day when it came; but it is fair to this man to say that the District Munsif, while not attempting to use it as a justification for w