MISERABLE FAMILY DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 76, 1 April 1899, Page 2 (Supplement)

MISERABLE FAMILY DISPUTE.

A CLERGYMAN AND HIS FATHER AT LAW.

A bitter family dispute found its way into the English Court of Appeal. The plaintiff, Mr -William Warren, sen., of The Ferns, Stoke-by-Clare, who is also the appellant, sued his son, the Rev. W. Warren, to recover £206 3/9, being interest received by defendant upon certain shares belonging to plaintiff. The defendant met the claim with a plea that he had devoted the money to- the maintenance of plaintiff's wife, and furthermore, counterclaimed from his father £977. Mr Justice Day's decision in the case did not satisfy the plaintiff, who appealed. The defendant, a graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge, was for some time rector of q, parish in Cambridgeshire, but gave up his living a few years ago, and went to reside with his father, who at that time was living with his second wife. The father subsequently left his home and stayed away for three years, travelling in England and Ireland, and according to defendant's case during that period plaintiff gave his wife no money to keep up the house or to provide herself with necessaries. The defendant and hi 3 stepmother continued to live in the house. In order to meet the household expense the defendant alleged that he had.to realise some of his father's securities, and that he had expended the sum counterclaimed for in keeping up his father's establishment and providing his stepmother with a home and necessaries.

At the trial Mr Justice Day gave judgment fpr defendant for the amount clamed in the counter claim, less the amount sought to be recovered'by the plaintiff.

The father alleged that he had been obliged to leave his house owing to the treatment he had received from his wife and son, which had made his home almost 'a hell upon earth.'

The appeal was partly argued a day or two ago, when the Lords Justice intimated that they thought the facts necessary for deciding the appeal on its merits were not before them, and suggested that the parties should try and come to terms.

Counsel stated that the parties had not been able to arrange a settlement.

Lord Justice A. L. Smith then said the only course open to them was to order a new trial. The action had been tried by Mr Justice. Day in a most unsatisfactory manner. That learned judge had not dealt in his judgment with all the matters in dispute. He himself now most emphatically desired to urge both parties to reconsider the question of a.new trial, and to put an end to this miserable family dispute by a give ajid take agreement between themselves. If they could not come to terms, he would suggest that they should submit the whole matter to some gentleman who should act as arbitrator between them. The costs, if there were a new trial, should follow the result of the Bpcond action.

The ether Lords Justices concurred.