Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A FILIAL DUTY.

AND FINANCING DIFFICULTY. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Friday. A somewhat unusual civil action was heard in the Magistrate's Court this morning before Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M., when G. T. Croft, of Petone, builder, claimed £4B 15s from his son, William Croft, of Waituna West, Feilding, also a builder. Plaintiff alleged that liis son owed him forty-two weeks' lodging at lGs a week from April, 1-006, to February, 1007, for washing at Is 2d a week for the same, period, £lO money alleged to have been lent, and £2 for fishing tackle and rifle said to be left with defendant for sale. Mr. Peacock appeared, for the plaintiff and Mr. T. M. Wilford for the defendant.

Plaintiff's case was that his son had lived with him from 1903 to the end of 1905, when Croft, junr., went to England, ! returning in April, 1900, practically penniless, said counsel. He came to his father and asked the father to keep him. The father agreed to take the wanderer home again on the same terms as before, 16s a week, but said he would not press for payment until his son was in a position to pay. Defendant was now earning £4 a week as clerk of works for the Wanganui Education Board. Plaintiff nearly fainted during his examination by counsel for the defendant, and had to retire. The case for the defence was that Croft, junr., had always paid his board; the £lO claimed as "money lent" was really owing to him by his father as architect's fees for drawing plans of a house owned by Croft, senr., after he had asked for the usual fee of £l2 10s; that defendant himself had to provide for the family after plaintiff had turned them out; that the "washing" had never been paid by plaintiff at all, and that the fishing tackle and rifle had not been, sold by defendant, but were left where plaintiff had deposited them. After hearing the evidence, with two witnesses for the defence being called, his Worship gave judgment for the defendant. with costs and expenses totalling £6 7s.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19101105.2.7

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 177, 5 November 1910, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
353

A FILIAL DUTY. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 177, 5 November 1910, Page 2

A FILIAL DUTY. Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 177, 5 November 1910, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert