SON AGAINST FATHER

Evening Star, Issue 17764, 12 September 1921, Page 6

SON AGAINST FATHER

AN UNUSUAL CASE. CHARGE OP FRAUD. The private jprosecution was continued before Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., this morning, in which Hector Freeman James charged his father, John James, with having received £329 11 s 7d on terms , requiring him to account for the same to John James and Co., Ltd., and with having fraududently omitted to do so. Mr H. Brnsch appeared for the informant and Mr A. 0. Hanlon for the accused. Mr_ Hanlon continued his crossexamination of Francis James, who said ho hoard the agreement under which Hector was to work for his father discussed in the house. His sympathies _ were with his brother, who ho believed was in the right. He swore ho did not urge his brother to prosecute, but admitted that he had not much time for his father. Ho would not do his father a bad turn, but would not go out of his way to do him a good one. He admitted having used “old fellow” in a letter when referring to his father. Hugh Mitcliell, recalled by Mr Brasch, answered further questions with regard to the books. Ho wrote up tho books on separate sheets because Hector was so suspicious. In tho course of argument whether certain questions asked were relevant, Mr Brasch remarked that it was suggested that an attempt had been made to deprive tho company of monies for the purpose of depriving the informant of tho benefits ho was entitled to from the company. Mr Mitchell further described an entry of £3OO as a fictitious entry. Hector, they wore being informed, was being primed by Francis, and Melville, who kept the books, thought _ he would play a joko on Francis by making that entry, thus giving Francis something to take to Hector. That amount was counterbalanced by cross entries, which cancelled the entry.

Denis O’Connell, builder, said James and Co. did work for him to tho amount of £317, which he paid by cheques of several amounts.

At this stage the case was adjourned till tho afternoon.

On resuming after lunch, Mr Brasch called the complainant (Hector Freeman James), .who said that he worked for accused from tho time he left school until he came of age, on condition that he received one-third interest in the firm. He received a wage of 2s 6d a week. About four months after he came of ago he went to (ho war, although against his father’s wishes. When he returned he was informed that a company would be formed. A company was formed accordingly, and he worked for it until May last. £63 was owing to him for -wages. He refused to hand over his war pension to tho company, and was told by his father to go. He went to New Plymouth. He never told anyone that he wished to get rid of his shares. (Left sitting.)