THE DRUCE CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2104, 1 February 1908, Page 3

THE DRUCE CASE.

NEWSFA PER ST AT UM ENTS

United Puss A...soemiion---Copyright (Rt ceiled Ja:i. .">l. .11.oS p.m.) IJINDUN, Jan. ill.

The "Duly t kw-nici©’’ say© that neither Gw y, Ho iamby, Druco nor G. Druco, Limited, arc able' to continue the civil ncf’ou. Hollamby Druco from the outset has conceal-il essential facts, and has bated his appeal for public supper, on deliberate reticence and misroprcrciii.uion. the “Chronicle’’ claims posses documents showing how (Sheriff in was associated with Anna .Deuce's claims until ibo litigation ceased, and that lie .-add for £2OO to . Tu’ivimuml. "ho was Charles Eu ~.. Di nee's p.m.-r of attorney in lamdon. certain information which is expected to lie useful in supporting Edgar's claim. Then in 1903, Trow nnaiil attend,d a toaiereneo with Hollamby Druco iml Coburn, in the chamber© of a barrister in London, and informed Hollamby Druco that he was nor heir while Edgar was alive. It was then resolved to cable to Edgar Druee's solicitors to renew his power of attorney granted to Trentnnard in IS!kb The replv referred them to a firm of solicitors in London, who advised Druco that the family’s claim was based on insufficient evidence. and was not worth pursuing. Coburn then wont to Australia, and secured an •agreement whereby Edgar Druco professed to transfer his rights, and pledged himself not to interfere with Hollaniby’s proceeding on the condition of his sharing tho spoil in the event- of success. Tito only basis for (ho claim advanced was an error in Charles Crickiuor Druee’s marriage certificate, inasmuch as the bridegroom gave his father’s name as Henry, instead of Thomas. Similar errors have been made in thousands of certificates The baptismal certificate proves that the bridegroom was Thomas’ son. Sheridan in March, 1904. joined Hollamby’s camp, and entered into an agreement, receiving from Hollamby a commission note of 0! per cent, on nil property recovered. Coburn promising 3J per cent of the amount paid, to Druco, hence, in 1907, the Druco Portland Company, which formed the New Druco Portland Co. to acquire Sheridan’s, assets. Sheridan had boon selling illusory rights, and had withhold bis knowledge that if there was an heir it was Edgar and not Hollamby. Tho latter publicly dissociated himself from this .flagrant flotation, but the fact remains that it was his and Coburn's action that made it possible.