EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION

Otago Witness, Issue 3523, 20 September 1921, Page 24

EXTRAORDINARY PROSECUTION

SON VERSUS FATHER. CHARGE SCATHINGLY DISMISSED. The case in which Hector Freeman James proceeded against his father, John James, on a charge of having received the eurn of £329 11s 7d on terms requiring him to account for the same to John James and Co. (Ltd.), and having fraudulently omitted to do so, was continued in the City Police Court on the 12th. —Mr 11. Brasch appeared for the informant and Mr Hanlon for the defendant.

The case for the proseution having been concluded, Mr ITanlon submitted that tho informant had completely failed to make out a prima facie case against the defendant, and that the defence should not be called upon at all. 110 would like to say,” however, that it had been a very terrible blow to the father that lie should have been arrested at the instigation of his son just as ho was going over to Sydney to bo married. Tho son know perfectly well that his father was well off, and it was absurd to suggest that he would steal a few hantiess. With regard to the suggestion that his father was disloyal, it was absolutely preposterous. Defendant had been a volunteer for 40 years, and was a particularly strong loyalist. To say that he. did not want his son to go to the war was wicked; defendant was 'only too glad that some of his sons had been lit and able to go to the war. Then to say that he wanted the hoy's pension was a ioul suggestion. II was simply a coinage of the young man’s brain, or the, coinage of his brother. Counsel did not suggest that the informant was as had as Ins brother, who made the bails for him to fire. The magistrate agreed wil.ii counsel tin ! there was no ease lo answer, fie said that the prosecution should never have lien brought. The solicitor appearing in the ease for the informant was not consulted before the proceedings had been instituted; lie look the cs-o after the omened ings had been taken by (be son himself. The proceedings were the result of the affidavit in Wellington, and the result showed absolutely no foundation for the young man coming into court and laying a criminal

charge. Mr Mitchell’s evidence showed what the position was. It was more than clear that the bosks had not been well kept. They were first kept by the informant and when taken over by the elder brother the latter followed the others’ system, which was bad, though there was sufficient in the books to enable them to be made up. It was clear that both amounts were debited to the defendant, who did not keep the books. There was nothing secret about the thing. All that defendant did was to sign his name as the person paying in, the butts being written out by the son, Melville. There was nothing secret and nothing underhand. The informant’s position in regard to the father had been put before tlie court from almost the time he left school, and in fairness to the defendant it should be said that his position in regard to the company was founded on an agreement of December 10, 1919, by which the father founded the company with a capital of £2OOO, and ihe father and the two sons, Hector and Melville, were each to have a one-third interest.. The sons were to pay amounts, evidently from the proceeds of the company, on the basis of the company capital. It was, therefore, simply a proposition by the father icr the defence of the sons themselves. That was contrary to the position put before the court by the applicant. Mr Bartholomew went on to refer to the extravagant at.d abusive letter in which the applicant, made claim upon the company, a wicked letter which the applicant had stated in court was only “bluff.” It called for the most severe condemnation, and he (the magistrate) was inclined to question the writer’s mentality. The information must oe dismissed. It was regrettable that the time of the court had been taken up so long with such a case, and the defendant left it without a stain upon his character.