THE DRUGE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 36, 1 February 1908, Page 5

THE DRUGE CASE.

til It At 1 lu.\ to lii. Lh.-ujj. i i\i i.i A PAfl.ii> 1Lt.L1,. 41 ,.,.\5. A BOUuiU Uj.„-lii;.iO. Revelled Jl-l, 11 „,.-» p..ii. Luuoou, ,jai,,i„.. ... The Daily chronicle says tuai "i».. „■ i lievrge lloluunby Druce "uor G. Dnitc J-Jiuittu, ki aoie to continue Lie tin: action. HoUamby Druce iroiu the oui-ri, t..,P»J*r IULn, concealed toe wC.ji iaeU and Uiscd hu appeal lur pu».i.| aupnort ou deliberate ii-Uu-uce and u..-

repteacnlaltou. fnc Cbroakle cUj'um to pu—c;- Joti; meat* ibottiug that Mii-iitian u .is•ociated with Anna Drucc's thiini until her litigation ceased; that he sold lor . J£flW to flew luu-1.1, who was l luikKdgar Drucc's power ol attorney in Loiiduo, certain information whim vu- e.\ petted to lie usciul in supporting Edgar Druce'* claim. Then in KMS IrcwmBard attended a conference uitli Hw hlmby Druce and Mr. Coburn, K-C, in the chamber* ol a barrister in Loudon, and lulonii.il llollaiuby Druce thai Edgar Druce was alive. Ii was then raulved to cable lo Edgar's solicitorto renew hi* power ui attorney. Imuran granted to Irrwianard in l'v.r.i. 11„reply referred iheiu lo a tirm of solidtun in London, who advised the Dnicc family that the claims were bami ~n insufficient evidence and weie not woi'.a penning. Mr. Coburu then went, to Australia . and teemed an agreement whereby Ed- I air Druce pruteaaed to traiittier iilv j right*, and pledged hinwlf not lo interfile with, ilulLuuby Druce'? proceed-' rng» on condition of bi> sharing ilie i ru> the event of the other's aucct-as. only buu for the claim advanctil - | «u an error in Charles Crickroer Druc-V i marriage certificate, inasuiurh that t n<bridegruoui gave his lather's name as llenry inatead ui Thoma-. Similar er- j run were made in thousand* of ceriiti-

cates. Ihe baptismal certificate protrs that the bridegroom «u Thon.is. A ton of bheridan in Match. ' . joined Holbunby Drum's cauip ..• • entered into as agreement, recei'. ilollaiuby Drnce comniL»*ion don < ~ |*r cent. Limited in able to co . civil action. promising 3V, per eei'. of the amount paid to Druce. Hence, in 1907, the) Druce-Portland Co. wa> furmed to inquire boeridan's a»»et», Sheridan selling hi* Uliuory right*, and not withholding hi* knowledge thai if there were an heir i it was Edgar Druce, nut Holiamhy | Druce. The latter publicly dismsori j ated hinuelf from this flagrant llotayj tion, but the fact remain* that his and ' Mr. Coburn'* action made it possible. j Tie evidence brought in 1901 was called to rebut the allegation of Ann* Maria Druce as to the bogus burial "f 1864. The charge of perjury recently brought against Herbert Druce was based on the evidence given by him in the Ansa Drnce suit, via., That in 18M he saw his father, T. C. Druce, dead, and in The new Druce Portland Company, with a capital of 25JD00, was formed to acquire an alleged right by one Sben daa to 10 per cent, of the proceeds accruing to the claimant, George Holland J»t Drue,. Subsequently a section of. the new company applied for an injunction to prevent of the funds, on the ground that "CJ. H. Druee's daim must faD, because Charles Edgar ' Drnce, grandson of an elder brother of ■ tie claimant's father, is still alive i« j Australia."