A FAMILY DISPUTE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15704, 25 August 1911, Page 5

A FAMILY DISPUTE.

FATHER AND SON-IN-LAW

An interesting case was heard at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., when Hugh Shannon (Mr Dougall), an old man, seventy-seven years of age, claimed from Richard Albert Pearse (Mr Wilding, sen.), his son-in-law, the sum of £123 4s 9d, together with interest at 6 per cent from June 1, 1910. The statement of claim set out that on or about May 31, 1910, the defendant received the sum of £l5O from the plaintiff, which lie had failed to repay, although frequently' requested to do so. He had paid the sum of £27 15s 3d on plaintiff’s behalf, and plaintiff was therefore suing for the balance, with interest.

The plaintiff stated that lie had been a storekeeper at Halswell, but in May, 1910, he had sold his business and had gone to live with Pearse in Ashburton. On May 31, 1910, he had received a cheque from Izard and Loughnan for £l5O, and had gone with tne defendant to the Bank of New Zealand for the purpose of cashing the cheque. He nad given the defendant the cheque to hand to the ledger clerk, and defendant had then cashed the cheque ami kept the money. The defendant had used £IOO of the money to pay an account owing by him. and had promised to repay tho old man when they returned to Ashburton. Pearse had, lion ever, failed to return the money, although repeatsdlv asked to do so. Shortly alter plaintiff had mode a will in favour of his daughter, Mrs Pearse.

Cross-examined by Mr Wilding, the witness stated that lie had never been happy in Ashburton, although lie stated, amidst tears, that no loved his daughter.

W hen asked by Mr Wilding if it were true that lie had once gone to Christchurch, and hnd returned in an advanced state of intoxication, necessitating his confinement in the lock-up. the witness grew choleric, and stated that if he had done so he had “got intoxicated with his own money.” The old man expressed surprise several times at the learned counsel’s evident inability to understand “ plain English’.” When asked whether he was addicted to drink, plaintiff stated that he could drink when he.wanted to, hut “could he satisfied with tho smell of a cork.” Richard Albert Pearse said be was a farmer at Tin weld, and had "been married to plaintiff’s daughter for twentyone years. He had always been on good terms with the plaintiff, who was a very active and intelligent old man, although ho was at times not responsible owing to drink. Witness said that he accompanied plaintiff to Izard and Loughnan’s office on the occasion when lie received the cheque. Shannon hnd given him the cheque to look after. After cashing tho cheque, the plaintiff hnd given him tho change to “ invest for Katie,” that wns, for Mrs Pcarse. Witness had used £IOO of the money, with Shannon’s consent, to pay an account. He had given his wife the balance and a cheque for the £IOO. She instructed him to invest the money, and tlie old man had also told him to invest the money and to give Mrs Hearse security. lie had bought, a house and transferred it through the Building Society to liis wife. Shannon had never asked him for the money. At this stage the old man said “he couldn’t listen to any more lies,” and commenced to wall: up and down tho Court, talking volubly the while, lie was subsequently ejected, and left the Court, instructing his counsel to prevent the witness from “ telling more lies.” Witness, continuing, said that after the house had been bought and the transfer settled, tho old man had stated his intention of suing for his £l5O. and in order to keep the affair out of tlie Courts witness had offered to pay him £IOO as a compromise. He ( had refused this, however.

To Mr Dougal!, witness said that the plaintiff was not a constant drinker, but had he-sn in the habit of getting intoxicated about once a fortnight. He had not been drinking, however, since ho had been living in Ashburton. He had always been extremely happy while living with witness. Catherine Pearse stated that she was the daughter of the plaintiff. She corroborated defendant’s story of the gift of £l5O. She had never heard her father asking about the £l5O. Ho had approved of investing the money in the house, and seemed very pleased with tho purchase. The Magistrate said that the defendants had absolutely failed to prove that they hkd had any intention of rcturn'ing the money. Judgment wou.SJ be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with interest at 5 per cent to date of judgment, and costs.