Claims that the adopted daughter of "Auntie Em" harassed her elderly mother over the telephone — and counter claims that the daughter herself was harassed by the widow's nephew — were heard in court yesterday.

Stephen Woodley, who holds power of attorney for his aunt Wilhelmina Liburd, alleged that her daughter Rosamund Hayward made constant calls to her after she was removed from the family home in Devonshire on the orders of the National Office for Seniors and the Physically Challenged (NOSPC).

Mrs. Liburd, the 95-year-old near-blind widow who it is claimed was abused and neglected by her daughter, was taken in by caregiver Yvonne Dawson and later by a couple called Mr. and Mrs. Johnson who belonged to her church.

Ms Dawson, 40, is now suing Mrs. Hayward for $25,000 she claims she is owed for looking after Mrs. Liburd. Mrs. Hayward denies ever having a contract with the nursing assistant.

Mr. Woodley, giving evidence in the civil case, was asked under cross-examination by Mrs. Hayward's lawyer why he hadn't contacted her about money owing to the caregiver until Auntie Em was admitted to hospital in May 2007.

He replied that one reason was because he stopped all communication with her for a period of time due to the phone calls she was making to her mother.

"When my aunt was living at Ms Dawson's house my aunt constantly got telephone calls from Mrs. Hayward arguing about the fact that I have power of attorney," he said.

"I told Mrs. Hayward that if she did not desist with this type of conversation there would be no more calls allowed to my aunt. She, Mrs. Hayward, continued calling on Ms Dawson's phone and I cut off all communication at that point.

"When my aunt moved to live with the Johnsons I did not inform her of that move because of the past harassment."

Ray DeSilva, for Mrs. Hayward, read out a letter from her attorney to Mr. Woodley's lawyers sent in July 2007 which asked him to stop leaving threatening messages on her work voice mail.

The letter said the messages constituted harassment and intimidation and were aimed at pressuring her to sign up for a joint $70,000 loan with Mr. Woodley to pay outstanding bills to caregivers.

Mr. Woodley said the lawyers never responded because they were no longer representing his aunt. "I don't remember seeing it," he said of the letter. "I'm not saying I didn't get it."

Ms Dawson's lawyer Leo Mills objected to the questioning since it strayed from the preliminary issue being tried: whether a contract between Ms Dawson and Mrs. Hayward existed.

Mr. DeSilva argued that Mr. Mills himself had strayed into irrelevant details about the quality of care Mrs. Liburd received from her daughter.

Mr. Mills said: "Had it not been for the conditions in which Mrs. Liburd was living we would not be here and there would be no discussion about a contract at all."

Yesterday's hearing in front of Magistrate Tyrone Chin also heard claims from Mr. Woodley that Mrs. Hayward's husband Patrick suggested Auntie Em needed to be put in a home as she was a "family burden".

Mr. Woodley said Mr. Hayward was ordered by another aunt to start paying $200 a month to Mrs. Liburd as he contributed nothing to the family's income.

He said Mrs. Liburd's son-in-law paid him directly for three months but then opted to give the money straight to Auntie Em. "I was informed later on from my aunt, Mrs. Liburd, that the payments ceased," he said.

Mr. Woodley was asked by Mr. DeSilva whether Ms Dawson brought up payment when she offered to take her patient into her own home at a meeting at the NOSPC in November 2006.

Mr. Woodley replied that she did not need to since no one could have expected his aunt, who needs 24-hour care, to have a "free ride".

The case continues today.