Prosecutor Kulandra Ratneser yesterday called veteran lawyer Julian Hall desperate and dishonest and accused him of taking advantage of a vulnerable woman to steal half a million dollars from her.

And was chastised by Hall and Chief Justice Richard Ground for the headline in Thursday?s paper.

The headline referred to Hall?s admission that he had done legal work in the past for Bettina McMahon, Mrs. McMahon?s daughter.

?Hall never admitted to lying,? said Chief Justice Ground. He cautioned the jury and had Hall?s statement read back to them, ?If it was not true, it was not intentionally not true,? Hall had said on Wednesday, as was reported.

He had also told the court he had forgotten about letters he had written for Bettina McMahon as her lawyer.

Hall, 55, of Whaling Hill, Southampton is being tried on five counts of stealing a total of $551,044 from Betty Lorraine McMahon between 1995 and 1996. Through a series of formal admissions over the course of the trial Hall has admitted to using $288,000 of Mrs. McMahon?s funds to pay off his debts.

The case is being heard by Chief Justice Richard Ground. Hall is representing himself.

On Tuesday, in his closing words during cross-examination of Hall, Mr. Ratneser said that Hall?s testimony was ?desperate words of a dishonest man who is trying to explain away his actions.?

?The use of desperate is inappropriate, and the use of dishonest is even more inappropriate,? Hall answered.

Mr. Ratneser said: ?You were a clever lawyer. You were desperate for money and you were also a dishonest lawyer. And here was a vulnerable woman in the form of Mrs. McMahon.

?You exploited the opportunity for your own benefit and possibly for her daughter Bettina McMahon and you stole her money.?

?That is not true,? said Hall.

Words between Hall and Mr. Ratneser were often heated yesterday. At one point, Mr. Ratneser told Hall sharply: ?You just leave me alone, will ask the questions.?

In another exchange Mr. Ratneser asked Hall how he could be so ignorant about the accounts practices of his own company. He wanted Hall to tell him where the book of original entries was that would show how Mrs. McMahon?s money was used.

Hall told the court he was not familiar with the phrase ?book of original entries?.

?How do I answer a question that asks me to admit I am ignorant?? Hall asked.

?You are saying that after all these years you don?t know what a book of original entries is?? Mr. Ratneser asked.

?I am sure that I must have,? Hall said.

Hall also admitted under cross-examination that he had never drawn up a promissory note for the $500,000 loan he said Mrs. McMahon had given him. He said part of the terms of the loan was that he make mortgage payments for Mrs. McMahon?s nurse, Marion Wolffe.

Mr. Ratneser suggested that an honest lawyer would have advised his client to go about the loan by documenting it properly.

?We discussed the possibility of that, but we decided it was just between us,? said Hall. ?There was no need to memorialise it. I have to say with the benefit of hindsight it would have been really good.?

Mr. Ratneser questioned how the document giving Hall the power of attorney was drawn up and signed the same day he met Mrs. McMahon, July 16, 1995.

Hall chalked it up to efficiency.

?If you believed she was compliant and able to give directions why was there a need for a power of attorney?? Mr. Ratneser asked.

?It was highly desirable and it was the most efficient way of handling things and she agreed,? answered Hall.

Hall admitted that none of his tasks for Mrs. McMahon specifically required the power of attorney: ?There were other ways around it.?

?I put it to you that the only reason you wanted power of attorney was so that you could have access to her money,? said Mr. Ratneser.

?I say no,? answered Hall.

Hall later said: ?I didn?t steal that money or from anyone else in my life. My mother didn?t raise a thief.?

Hall called two witnesses before resting his case, Sgt. Cheryl Watts who went with Hall and Bettina McMahon to see Mrs. McMahon on Hall?s first visit to her in July 1995, and lawyer Marc Telemaque who witnessed Mrs. McMahon swear an affidavit saying she wanted Hall as her lawyer. Sgt. Watts told the court that she and another officer were asked to escort Bettina McMahon and Hall in to see Mrs. McMahon because there were questions of a disturbance of the peace at Mrs. McMahon?s house on Harbour Road in Paget.

?Did you assess what her reaction was to the proposed visit? asked Hall.

?She was in agreement to the visit,? answered Sgt. Watts. ?I recall she seemed capable of making the decision. She didn?t seem under duress. She appeared willing.?

Under cross examination Sgt. Watts said at the time she knew no history about the family or the circumstances surrounding the request for her to go to the house.

Mr. Ratneser asked if she was surprised when there was no breech of the peace when they arrived at Mrs. McMahon?s residence.

Sgt. Watts said she was not surprised.

?Did you realise you had been used?? Mr. Ratneser asked.

?I was a young constable at the time. I had a year and a half of service. I did what I had to do,? she answered.

Chief Justice Ground asked Sgt. Watts: ?If you knew then what you know now, would you have gone to that residence??

After a long pause, Sgt. Watts said: ?I know so much of the case now it would be hard to say.?

Hall?s witness, Mr. Telemaque who was then a lawyer and Commissioner of Oaths said after the signing, Bettina McMahon said to her mother, ?this might save you some bother? and her mother replied: ?I wish they would bother me. That is what the problem is.?

He said Mrs. McMahon appeared very comfortable during the signings. Bettina McMahon was sent out of the room when pen was put to paper.

Mr. Telemaque said Hall read Mrs. McMahon the affidavit line by line, so carefully that Mr. Telemaque was late for his next appointment.

Hall rested his case. Closing speeches are expected to begin on Monday.