A FAMILY QUARREL

Evening Star, Issue 18031, 27 July 1922, Page 7

A FAMILY QUARREL

FORBIDDEN TOMBSTONI

A pathetic family quarrel, which had its origin in tho monumental honoring of tho dead, was ventilated in (ho County Court, Melbourne (says the 'Ar.cj before Judge Woinarski. .A son sued hri mother for halfcost of the making of a tombstone for his father's grave, tho erection of which tho mother forbade. The family of grown-up sons and daughters took the mother’s part, overwhelming the son’s case, which' depended upon bis own uncorroborated 1 testimony. When bis father (an ex-railway servant at Newport Workshops) died in August, 1919. William Alexander Thomas, momunenial mason, told tin; fellow members of his family, in the Williamstown Cemetery, where they were mourning together before the funeral, that ho was going fo erect to his father's memory tho "best tombstone in tho Williamstown Cemetery,”, "because "his father was worth it.” It would cost, he said, between £2OO and £3OO. His brothers and sisters 'alleged- that William said he would erect this handsome tribute ..to the dead partly "as an advertisement for himself,” and that in any case it would cost nobody but himself a penny. He would) bear all tho cost. William denied this. Ho said that he mado an arrangement with the mother whereby ho was to defray half tho cost of the tombstone, and bis mother and other members of the family tho other half. Tho cost amounted to £l2O, and ho claimed from his mother, Mrs Mary Ann Thomas, the sum of £6O. Tho tombstone, it was admitted, was never erected. It was quarried, at Dandenong, the son William, his brother, and brother-in-law doing tho work to reduce expenses. It was alleged, however, that William demanded the sum of £IOO from his mother before ho would complete the job, and. ilio mother refusing, and William being obstinate, tho order for another tombstone was given to a. mason named Taylor, and was duly 'erected over the dead man's grave. The tombstone quarried by William was never erected. Tho widow forbade it. She refused to further parley with her son about the matter.

Tho feelings manifested in court were somewhat bitter. The widow wept nt intervals, and brother gave evidence against brother, and sister against 'brother, with an intensity of sentiment that revealed how bitter tho quarrel had. become before iho parlies to ventilate it in court. 'Evidence was given of a confused .scene at William’s house, when a. sister's umbrella, was allegedly brandished with some freedom and a window was smashed.

Mr Hurdcr (instructed by Messrs Snowball and Kaufman) appeared for the plaintiff son, and Mr Clyno (Instructed by Mr E. H. Hick) for tho defendant mother. The eon gave his own version. Mr Clyne then put the. mother, a son, two daughters, and a son-in-law in the box to give the denial to tho plaintiff’s version. Mrs Whiteaway and Mrs Boardman, sisters of iho plaintiff, spoke vigorously on their mother’s behalf. Mrs Boardman said she- was surprised at her brother’s announced intention of erecting a tombstone costing £2OO or £3OO, but she did nob feel called upon to question his ability to pay that sum. Ho was always “ slating about his business and the good money ho earned, but his wife saw very little of it—very little.” ‘•Very little indeed,” Mrs Whiteaway corroborated. “If ho had the money ho might have spent it to advantage on his own wife and family.” Andrew J. Thomas, railway employee, also swore that ho heard his brother say that ho was going to erect this “best monument in iiho Williarastown Cemetery” at his own expense. He (William) thought that the raihvaymeu at Newport were going to collect a good deal more money than they did for Iho tombstone.

Mr Hinder: Did you hear him say that? Andrew Thomas: No; but I knew he was thinking that. Mr Harder: You’re a, thought reader, arc you? Witness further said that when his brother was told that h© could not get £IOO, and tho family would get somebody else to erect tho tombstone, ho replied “ Get somebody else. You can do your damnedest.” But three or four mouths later, when somebody else was given iho job, William “started to> kick up a ehiuty.” Witness admitted (hat he was somewhat confused about the dates of the converse Rons, whereupon Mr Hurdcr invited him to say candidly that he did not know what ho was talking about, and witness obligingly replied, amid laughter that relieved somewhat the gloom of the unhappy proceedings, that lie “did not.”

Frederick Gordon, a son-iu-law, said that ho helped in the work of quarrying the monument at Dandenong. Mr Glyr.oi Did you find your own expenses? Gordon (in, a tone of disgust); Yes. Wo found his (William's) expenses, too, and his tucker also.

Judge Woina.rski said that it was a regrettable action, and a hopeless one for tho plaintiff, there being no corroboration of hia version to support, his claim. Tho evidence against him overwhelmed his cose, and judgment would bo given for the defendant (the mol her), with costs to bo taxed.