MOTHER AND SON

Evening Star, Issue 15478, 28 April 1914, Page 6

MOTHER AND SON

DISPUTE OVER DEBT. PLATN" TALK BY COUNSEL. In the Magistrate's Court to-day, ho* fore Air H. A r . Widdowson, S.M., Lawrence Eraser, a City Corporation employee, sought to recover from Isabela Walquisrt, his mother, the sum of £4 10s, being the amount paid by plaintiff on sth I February, 1909, to the Dunedin City Cor- ‘ poration on behalf and at the request of defendant. Defendant counter-claimed £l4 10s, the value of grass seed sold by plaintiff or. behalf of the defendant, and the value of a tank and boiler sold by the plaintiff without the consent and authority of the defendant. Air C. N. Scurr appeared for Fraser, Mr A. C. Hanlon for Mrs Walquist. The plaintiff gave evidence at length, a>nd was repeatedly reproved from the Bench for his language, which included exp’.essions such as these:—“ What ridiculous rot ” and “ I was only chucking off,” this latter being given as an explanation of his use of sarcasm. As regards the fin- - ancial side of the dispute he was definite. He said that he paid the money at defendant’s request to obtain certain rights from the City Corporation to cut grass, and that ho wanted the money. It appeared to him, he said, that the promises of some folk were not very valuable.

His manner of receiving cross-examina-tion and dealing with it seemed to interest the learned counsel for the defence.

“Did you object to your mother’s marriage?” asked Mr Hanlon. —It was not very crei-itable. It was a beauty. Did you object!—l did not get the chance to object. (Laughter.) Mr Scurr: She has married a young husband? —He is a man about 42. She is about 63. Mr Scurr: Do you suggest that this man is getting benefit out of your late father's estate?—l suppose lie does. Mr Hanlon: Was that why you assaulted him five days after his marriage?— Witness said he did not know anything at all about the man’s character. Mr Hanlon, addressing the Court, said that no doubt in . ordinary circumstances the defendant would be liable for the amount of money paid to the City Corpora tion on her behalf, but the circumstanced were not ordinary. -Plaintiff had been doing work for his mother, and there had been various cross transactions, it being understood all the while that no claim would be made by either party against the other. As for the claim itself, it was stale, and almost statute-barred. _ It was brought out of bitterness. Plaintiff was a vindictive, nasty fellow, a man who couid not- be relied on, whose word was_ totally ur.worthv of credence. The claim was brought simply because the mother married again. “ This gentleman,” continued counsel, “ disapproved of the marriage, and so set about assaulting the man. He (plaintiff) and a younger brother went up to Walquist’s place to give him a hiding for marrying their mother. Cross proceedings were'taken, but eventually settled. Then for the. first time he makes a claim for this £4 10s. I suggest that he was chagrined that he did not get a chance to come into court on a- former occasion and be vindictive. Then he hunted up the receipt, and said ‘Here’s a chance.’ A dirtier action—l the word advisedly—one could not possibly conceive. Here’s an able-bodied man elects to bring a paltry action against hi? mother because she got married again. The thing is a disgrace in itself. The man is not worthy of anv credence. His whole manner, bearing, and conduct in the court towards his mother, the Court, and everything in it show that lie is a man of unreliable character, ana cannot be believed upon his oath. At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch. , . ~ The case was continued in tho alternoon.