THE PORTLAND ESTATES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2052, 2 December 1907, Page 3

THE PORTLAND ESTATES.

J’StRS. HAMILTON’S EVIDENCE.

United Press Association— Copyright LONDON, Nov. 30. In the Druce case Mrs. Hamilton deposed that she recognised the Duke through a bazaar window in 1844 bj means of a photograph in a card liei father had given her. She adhered tc this in cross-examination, though il was suggested that such photos were not produced until 1850.

APPLICATION- FOR AN INJUNCTION. FURTHER COMPLICATIONS. (Received 4.8 p.m., Dec. 1.) LONDON, Nov. 30. Tlio new Druce-Portland Company, through Pritchard, one of the directing ors, applied to Mr. Justice Joyco for Van injunction restraining Blakiston and Captain Halls, co-directors, partling with moneys in their possession. Pritchard’s counsel stated that Hoilamby Druce’s claim must fail because Charles Edgar Druce, grandson of the elder brother of claimant s father, M wa s still alive in Australia. Claimant tnisiht come to terms with his cousin, huf 1 that would not affect applicants, ■udio were shareholders and mostly araekns and domestics. application ,was adjourned. DISCREPANCIES IN MRS. HAMILTON’S EVIDENCE.

('Received Dec. 1, 3.47 p.m.) (KC LONDON, Nov. 30. Air. Avory asked Airs. Hamilton: “Has it not struck you as a curious coincidence that the gentlemen whom you call father and your tostei-father both died the same -year. Airs. Hamilton (promptly): No, it never occurred to me. . Mr Avory referred to certain omissions in her testimony before the Queen’s Bench Division, where she stated she lived in Gower street up to 1868, and did not inform Bargrave Ifeano that she was living with her hiXnd at Liverpool in 1858 and 18 “I often visited London, and stayed with father in Gower street she replied, “and was never asked about Liverpool.” . c Air Avory: They were not aware of it at ’that time, but wo found it put., Mr. Avory quoted the evidence g l . vel ? before the Queen’s Bench Division, showing that Mrs. Hamilton did not mention the lumps on the Duke s face. Ho suggested that the present testimony was based on Caldwell s. When confronted with the discrepancy thus revealed, Airs. Hamilton blamed the stenographers. She confessed she had confused dates, or, she declared, the questions put to her on the previous occasion had misled her. Readying to further questions by Air Avory regarding the handwriting of the Duke, witness stated that he was able to write almost any hand he liked. The Duke told her in reply to ■i cmestion she asked lnm that the mock funeral cost £IOOO. Witness supposed the officials were bribed, or they would never have taken the coffin without a certificate. Airs Hamilton, replying to Mr. Plowden, said that between 1866 end 1876 her father spoke to her about Caldwell going to do a good thing foi the Duke’s nose. She supposed lie meant Caldwell. She knew the Duke’s nose looked nice up to 1864, though if closely examined a person might see a little wart. Afterwards she saw the lump had disappeared. The Duke used to refer to outside eorrespendents, though her father was unaware wliv he wanted a woman ~