A MYSTERY SOLVED.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 311, 8 January 1908, Page 2

A MYSTERY SOLVED.

THE DIIUCE CASE. A GIiEAT DELUSION, i KECOiL OF THE CHARGES. I IDENTIFICATION OF TIIE EXIIUMED ! BODY. COLLAPSE OF TUB CASE.

London, January G. I ' Kvidcnce given ih<> J 'nu t 1 perjury I |v ; !'l s!m\v<vl Hint T. J)r->(■«'« ir'vav',. hart not, apparency boon t;» -f'l-xl Kinro if had lmi'ii mad". a crowbar was driven sixteen inches into the clay under the brick floor of the vault. Dr. Pepper, who had charge of the exhumation, described the clay shown on the crowbar as undisturbed virgin soil. There was ample evidence tliat the cause of death was in accordanco with the certificate. The face bore a striking likeness to Druce's photograph. It had a heavy bushy heard. Dr Pepper ridiculed the idea that the beard had grown after death. Thackerah, who had been n partner in the Baker Street Bazaar, positively identified the body as that of T. C. Drucc. Mr Atherly .Tones, counsel for Geo. Hollamby Drueo, said thnt. after this' evidence, ho could only withdraw from the cise. The charge of perjury was dismissed. MEETING OF CLAIMANT'S COMPANY. COSTS OF THE CASH. MORE FUNDS REQUIRED. .Received 7th 10.10 p.m.

London, January 7. A meeting of the Druce-Portland Coiilpany sli .reholdero na.s been convened three weeks' hencv. Mr T. K. Cobuni, solicitor for claimant, states he has been informed the proceedings have already cost nearly .£7OOO. Further funds will he required for civil litigation. THE REMARKABLE EVIDENCE. STATEMENT BY PROSECUTING COUNSEL. "THE SAME BODY AS THAT BURIED." Received 7th, 10.50 p.m. !

London, January 7- I When the hearing was resumed of the charge of perjury brought by claimant against Herbert Druce, Mr Plowden, the Magistrate, asked Mr Atherly Jones, K.C., who appeared for the prosecution, what impression Dr. Pepper's very r« markable evidence had produced on his mind. Mr Jone3 said it was lmpossibh to press the case further. He com plained of the undeserved obloqn/ cast upon the prosecution, considering that, except in regard to one witness, their large body of evidence was unshaken by strenuous and prolonged cross-ex-amination. After the exhumation, it was impossible to deny that it had been clearly demonstrated that Druce" died m London, was buried at Highgate, and that the body exhumed was the same body as that buried. Also that there was strong evidence to show that the body was Drucc's. While Herbert Druce was right in refusing to open the grave under menace of the prosecution, he had shown wise judgment in yielding to the moral pressure of public opinion. THE VOICE FROM THE GR AVETHE BUBBLE EFFECTIVELY WRECKED. THE JUSTICE'S ADDRESS. Received 7th, 11.36 p.m. London, January 7. In the Druce case, Mr Justice Plowden said that after the silent but important voice from the grave, it would b» impossible to continue the prosecution without serious injury to justice. But apart from this there was a new i and dramatic feature. Mr Atherly Jones must have felt the foundations of his case slipping away after tlie collapse of his most important witness and his long and fruitless examination of Nurse Bailey. At last, the bubble which had floated so long and so mischievously, was out out reach, and had been effectively wrecked. "No one," the Justice stated, "can now doubt that Druce died | amid his family and was buried at Highgate. His existence stands out clear, distinct and undeniable as that of any human being who ever lived. How the myth confusing him with the Duke, of Portland arose is idle to speculate upon. The case was a fresh instance of how love of the marvellous iB deeply Ingrained in human nature, and a striking proof of the truly nnfathomed depths of human credulity." The Court thanked Herbert Druce for consenting, in the interest? of justice, to the distasteful step of opening the grave. He left the Court with his character for truthfulness absolujSefc' and conclusively vindicated. PRESS CRITICISM. " MONSTROUS AND WICKED FABRICATION." Reoeived 7th, 1X 25 p.m. London, January 7. The Times says that the Druce prosecution came to a fit and ignominious end. One of the greatest delusions of modern times had been exploded and gone for ever in the popular legend regarding the identity of Druce and the Duke of Portland. The Telegraph says it Is difficult to idequately characterise tlie prosecution, ivhich was rebutted by Midi impressive testimony. It expresses the hope that ;he Justice will put some pertinent juestions to those bolstering up the nonstrous and wicked fabrication of lie mock funeral. AN' OLD STORY. ! P'CT ITT-' , HOW THE ACTION ORIGINATED. (

The document on which the charge of perjury against Herbert Druce was primarily based was Sworn on March 28th, 1898, as an affidavit in the Confistory Court; and in December, 1901, Herbert Druce followed it up by evidence. The cause of the affidn»it and the evidence being tendered was that in 1808, and, in fact, prior to that year, the question of the bogus burial had been put to the courts in probate proceedings brought by Mrs Anna Maria Dmce. According to counsel for claimant (George Hollamby Druce), Thomas Charles Druce, by marriage with a lady named Crickmer, had a son, George Druce, who was the father of the claimant, George Hollamby Druce. Thomas Charles Druce, by a liter marriage with a Miss May, had two sons, Herbert Druce (the accused), and Waiter Druce, ■who is dead, and who left a widow, Mrs Anna Maria Druce. It was Anna Maria Druce who brought the probate proceedings, and their object was to secure revocation of probate in the estate of T. C. Drucp. Probate had been granted under T. C. Druce's will to executors, and the main ground upon which Anna Maria founded her claim for the revocation of the will wa? thit it -was a fiction that T. C. Dmoe died in 1864, and that the funeral which took place subsequent to his alleged death , ■was a spurious one. In other words, | Mr T. C. Druce wis another person.