The question raised by this appeal is whether two innocent partners in a firm of three solicitors are liable for any part of the loss suffered by a client in consequence of the culpability of the third. The two innocent partners are the respondents, T. C. Holland, a solicitor of forty-five years standing, and L. A. Whitington, a solicitor of sixteen years standing. The culpable partner is Harold Holland, a son of the respondent T. C. Holland. The firm, which practised in Adelaide, was founded in October 1927. T. C. Holland had been a member of other firms, and his last partnership, of which his son was also a member, was dissolved in the same month. He had long been solicitor to the lady, the appellant, who seeks in this appeal to impose upon the respondents liability for her loss. Her father, one J. M. Dent, who died in 1911, had been a client of T. C. Holland. His wife and his daughter, the appellant, survived him, and they succeeded to a substantial estate. The appellant was then a widow about thirty-six years of age. She and her mother remained clients of T. C. Holland in the various firms of which he became a member. The legal business of these ladies arose mainly out of the investments which they made. The remuneration obtained by their solicitor consisted for the most part in fees paid by mortgagors and in commission charged upon the interest and other income collected for them. About the time that the firm of Holland & Whitington was formed, the appellant's mother died. In consequence of her mother's death, the appellant consulted Holland & Whitington. Harold Holland attended to her business. Hitherto she and her mother had almost confined their investments to bank shares, to first mortgages of real estate, and to Government bonds and stock. Apparently T. C. Holland had at some time or other warned them against speculating. But the appellant was not content with the income obtainable from Government securities. She was minded to sell her bonds and stock and invest in mortgages. About this time a valuer and stockbroker, named Turner, was sent by Harold Holland to make a valuation which was required as a result of her mother's death. She appears to have discussed investments with him. The upshot was that, after inspecting in his company two properties submitted through him to Holland & Whitington as securities, and after that firm had obtained his valuation, the appellant instructed them to sell through Turner some bank shares and to invest about £2,000 on those securities. The transaction was regularly carried through before the end of January 1928. Harold Holland was the partner under whom it was conducted, and, before the appellant decided upon the investment, she appears to have sought and obtained his approval. In the meantime the appellant resolved to visit Europe, and set about preparing for her departure, which was fixed for 14th April 1928. Her preparations included arranging for the transmission of money to England, the appointment of the Hollands as her attorneys under power, the making of her will, the deposit of her securities with her bank for safe custody, and the complete investment of her funds. These matters were all attended to by, or under the direction of, Harold Holland. He suggested that she might invest £1,250 upon a mortgage given by a borrower who was in fact his friend. Relying upon his statement as to the sufficiency of the security, she agreed to the loan without an inspection or a valuation of the security, which she said she had no time to make or obtain. Someone else recommended her to invest in debentures of a trading or financial company. She consulted Harold Holland upon the wisdom of doing so, and, after discussion with him, instructed him to take up £800 of debentures for her. Her will and the power of attorney were executed on 19th March 1928, when her securities were handed over to her for deposit with her bank. Between 24th March and 3rd April 1928, Turner, on the firm's instructions, sold £2,000 of Commonwealth stock for her, and the firm applied the proceeds to the loan upon the mortgage suggested by Harold Holland, and to the loan upon the debentures. None of the transactions thus far appears to have been improvident, but, two or three weeks before her departure, a proposal was made to the appellant, her acceptance of which resulted in the loss of £4,000. Turner came to her and suggested that she should sell South Australian inscribed stock of which she held about £5,000, and invest in shares of a company called "S.A. Trust Investment Company Limited," which, he said, would return ten per cent and would be a better investment than mortgages. The company was in fact one of a number in the formation of which Harold Holland had been active. It had been registered by the firm. One of Turner's clerks was secretary, and its books, so far as it needed any, were kept in his office. It had issued no share capital. It had no banking account. It did no business, except that a sum of £100 was lent in its name to one man and another sum of uncertain amount to another man. For the steps which the appellant took before she assented to the proposal that she should invest in this company's shares, we have little but her own evidence. The respondents have been absolved of all knowledge of the transaction. Neither Harold Holland nor Turner was called as a witness. Turner was sent to gaol for other misdeeds, and at the trial the whereabouts of Harold Holland, with whom the respondents dissolved partnership on 1st July 1931, were not made clear. Upon some subjects the appellant's testimony was not considered reliable by Murray C.J., who tried the action. But he does not appear to have doubted the substantial correctness of her account of this matter, and indeed no sufficient reason exists for doubting it. She says that she told Turner that she would not act without her solicitor's advice. She consulted Harold Holland, who said that he knew about the company: that they did the solicitors' work for it. She said that she had told Turner she would see him, and she asked him what he thought of it; what he would do in her place. Harold Holland told her he would himself invest in the shares if he had the money. Turner came over to the office and they talked over the matter together. She also had a discussion with Turner in his office. Eventually it was decided that she should dispose of £4,000 of her inscribed stock, retaining £1,000 as security for her letter of credit which her bank would issue for the purpose of her tour. Harold Holland drew out a document consisting of two parts. The first was a receipt, which Turner signed, for warrants and signed transfers in respect of £4,000 stock, stating that it was to be accepted by him "at the market rates for all above par and for any under par to be accepted at par for fully paid shares in S.A. Trust Investment Company Limited." The second part was an application to that company for fully paid ordinary shares, a request to register her as a shareholder, and an agreement to be bound by the memorandum and articles of association. The number and value of the shares were left blank. This application was signed by the appellant, who also signed forms of transfer. The latter was witnessed by a clerk of Turner, and may have been signed in his office. All the instruments bear the date 3rd April 1928. Turner sold the stock, but how he applied the money has not been satisfactorily explained. Turner's clerk, who was secretary of the company, threw no light upon it, except to say that the company did not receive any part of it, and that, although Turner's books recorded the receipt of the £4,000 worth of inscribed stock from the appellant on 3rd April 1928, there was no record of the proceeds or where they went. It appeared that on 3rd April 1928 a cheque for £1,354 19s. 8d. was placed to the credit of Harold Holland's bank account, which had been overdrawn to that amount. It further appeared that two cheques of Turner for £500 each were paid to another bank account of Harold Holland on 16th April and 1st May 1928 respectively. Murray C.J. was of opinion that these three sums represented part of the value of the appellant's inscribed stock. If so, the first sum must have been paid in by Turner in advance of the actual receipt of the proceeds of the stock. But whether Harold Holland did, or did not, receive any moneys representing the appellant's stock, he could not fail to know that the appellant was exposing her money to great hazard. Indeed, it may safely be inferred that he did know that she was actually defrauded, whatever hope he may have entertained of her ultimate rehabilitation.