<p>EDWARD WIREDU J.: This appeal raises for consideration (a) the extent to which the customary law notion of a father’s responsibility for the immoral conduct of his son in our present day society is recognised, (b) whether there exists any justification for modifying this notion to meet present day social and economic changes in the society, (c) what acts constitute actionable seduction under customary law and (d) whether it is competent for a court to disbelieve evidence which has not been challenged in cross-examination and if so under what circumstances.</p><p>The present appeal is from the decision of the District Court Grade II, Assin Manso, dated 4 September 1973, which upheld a claim for damages by the plaintiff-respondent (hereafter referred to simply as the plaintiff) against the defendants-appellants (hereafter also referred to as the defendants) in a seduction action.</p><p>The facts upon which the plaintiff’s action was founded are briefly nutshelled in his claim as follows:</p><p><em>“The plaintif…</em></p>