FRAUD ALLEGED

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 34, 3 November 1933, Page 2

FRAUD ALLEGED

Mother Sued by Son

disposal of legacy Claiming the sum of £94/11/4 from his mother, a plaintiff in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday held that Ue mone* which was a legacy to him, had been fraudulently converted to her own use. The case, which was heard before Mr. J. S. Barton, S.M, will be resumed this afternoon. PlaintUT was Patrick Daniel Mullin, labourer, who had recently attained his majority, and defendant hm mother, Ivy Muriel Warner, grocer. For a first cause of action plaintiff contended that defendant had received to l)is use the sum of £94/11/4, which she had converted to her own use, re-fusing-or neglecting to pay it back to him. A second or alternative cause of action was that defendant had allegedly induced him to sign aii order directing Messrs, Hadfield and Peacock, solicitors, Wellington, to pay the sum of money to her. by falsely representing that she would collect it and hold'it in trust for hiin until he could conveniently receive it. As well as the original sum general damages of £5O were claimed by plaintiff. Defendant claimed as a set-off £32/19/6 for moneys said to have been paid by her to or on account of plaintiff. Mr, G. W. Fitzherbert appeared for plaintiff and Mr. D. W. Virtue for defendant. Plaintiff, Mr. Fitzherbert siiid, had inherited a legacy when he was thirteen or fourteen from his great-uncle. He knew it would be available for hipr when he came of age in April last, and refused a suggestion by his mother that the money should be put into a business. He had been away from his home during most of his life. When lie came from the South Island to Wellington to collect the money his mother told him that he would not be able to get it for another six months, because an elder sister had taken that time to get a legacy of hers. She took him to the office of Messrs. Hadfield ami Peacock, where he signed an order fpr tire mopey to be paid to her, at her instigation, The sop thep went into the country for a time, and it was contended that . the mother wanted the money in connection with a business, When he arrived back at his mother’s home he became suspipiqus after a. time, the present action being the result. The defence'admitted that defemn ant hud received £92/6/10, for whieff she would have to account to her son, Mr, Virtue said. She contended that she had received it as a loan to help buy a business and enable her to support the family. Another daughter had also received a legacy of about £lOO, and mother, son and daughter lutd all nut money into the business. Plajntiff litid been satisfied with the position until an unfortunate dispute arose oyer a, game of cards, when his mother called him a cheat; then, it was stated, he became angry, said he had changed his mind about the money, and that was the real cause of the proceedings. It was admitted that defendant was indebted to her, son to the extent of £59; but,, as it was an ordinary loan, it would not have to be repaid until a proper demand was made.