JUDGMENT
LINGLEY J. stated the facts as set out above and continued:
The plaintiffs allege that this pledge was fraudulent and that Asamoah used the money for his own purposes. Both courts seem to have accepted that allegation without question. I do not consider it can be taken as proved that this money was not spent on the children; there can be no presumption of fraud. The children were maintained and have to admit that there is no evidence that Asamoah used the money "for his own debt"; their witness admits that Asamoah used to give the children whatever they demanded. The plaintiffs have delayed bringing proceedings for some years: I think this confirms the idea that they knew the money was used for their benefit.
While in possession of the house the defendant purchased the interest of Atta, the landlord. Both courts below consider this was in some way a breach of duty owed to the plaintiffs. I see no reason why he should not buy in the landlord's interest. I see no way in which, he …