THE DRUCE CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8994, 2 December 1907, Page 5

THE DRUCE CASE.

MRS 'HAMILTON'S .EVIDENCE. LONDON, .November .29. In .the farther hearing, of the Druce •case? Mrs Hamilton deposed..that she recognised the Duke through a baazar window in 1844 by means of a photogvaph on a card her father had jgiven her. She adhered to this in cross-exam-ination, though it was.suggested that .such photos-Were not produced until 1850. ■ • SEVERE CROSS-EXAMINATION. iSERIOUS DISCREPANCIES. Received December 1, 3.47 p.m. LONDON, November 30. , In the course of cro=s-examination, \ Mr Avorv asked Mrs Hamilton; "Has it no.t struck you as a curious ■coincidence that the gentleman whom you .call your father, and your fosterfather both died iin the,same year? Mrs Hamilton (promptly) "No; it iiiever occurred to mo." Mr Avory replied that there-were ■certain omissions in Mrs Hamilton ,s testimony given at the sitting of the ■ •Queen's Bench, where she stated that she lived in Gower Street up till 1868 and did not 'inform Barorave Deane that she was living .with her husband at 'Liverpool,from 1858 » to 1871. '"I often visited London, and stayed with my father in Gower Street," .replied witness. "I asked about Liverpool." Mr Avory: "They were not aware ,of it at that time, but we found it ■out. '* Mr Avory quoted evidence given at rthe sitting of the >Queeri!s Bench ■division showing that Mrs Hamilton did not mention the lumps on the Duke of Fortland's face. He suggested that the present :testimony was based on Caldweil's evidenco. When confronted with the discrepancies t- Mrs Hamilton blamed *ffljPfctenographers. :She confessed that she Jaad confused the •dates, or. she declared, the questions put to her on the previous occasion had misled her. Replying to further questions put by Mr Avory -regarding the handwriting of the Duke, the witness stated that he was able to write almost any Jiand he liked. The Duke told her, in reply to a question she asked him, that the mock funeral cost £I,OOO. "Witness supposed that the officials •were bribed or they would never have taken- the coffin without a certificate. Mrs Hamilton, replying to Mr Plowden, the magistrate, said that between 1566 and 1876 her ifathei spoke to.her about Caldwell going to do a geod thing for the Duke's nose. She supposed he meant Caldwell. She knew 'ihe Duke's nose looked nice up to 1864, though if closely ■examimd one might see a little mark. Afterwards she saw that the lump had disappeared. The Duke used to refer to an outside correspondent, though h<?r father was unaware why he wanted a woman secretary. THE DRUCE COMPANY DIRECTORS FALL OUT. Received December 1, 4.8 p.m. LONDON, November 30. The new Druce-Portland Company, through Mr Prichard, one of the directors, has applied to Mr Justiee Joyce.'?jjk an injunction restraining Mr and Captain Halls, codirectors', from parting with moneys in their possession. Mr Prichard's counsel stated that Hollamby Druce's claim must fail because Charles Edgar Druce, a • grandson of the elder brother of the claimant's father, was still alive in Australia. Claimant might come to terms with his cousin, but that would not affect the applicants, who were shareholders and mostly artisans * and domestics. The application was adjourned.