THE DRUCE CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9044, 1 February 1908, Page 5

THE DRUCE CASE.

NEW LIGHT ON COMPANY'S TRANSACTIONS. THE "CHRONICLE" POSSESSES IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS. Received January 31, 11.38 p.m. LONDON, January 31. The "Daily Chronicle" says that neither George Hollamby Druce nnr G. Druce, Limited, were able to continue the civil action. Hollamby Druce from the outset concealed the essential facts, and based his appeal for public support on deliberate reticence and misrepresentation. The I "Chronicle" claims to possess documents' showing that Sheridan \va; associated with Anr.a Druce's claims until her litigation ceased, and that he sold for £2OO to Trewinnard, who was Charles Edgar Druce's power of attorney at London, certain information which was expected to b2 useful in supporting Edgar Drug's claim. In 1903 Trewinnard attended a conference with Hollamby Druce and Coburn in the chambers of a , barrister in London, and. informed ' Hollamby Druce that he was not the heir while Edgar Druce was alive. It was then resolved to cable to Edgar Druce's solicitors to renew his power of attorney granted to Trewinnard in 1899. The reply received referred them to a firm of solicitors in London who advised that the Druce family's claims were based on insufficient evidence and not worth pursuing. Coburn then went to Australia and secured an agreement whereby Edgar Druce professed to transfer his right and pledged himself not to interfere with Hollamby Druce'? proceeding, the conditions being the sharing of the spoil in the event of success. The only basis for the claim advanced was an error in Charles Crickmer Druce's marriage certificate inasmuch as the bridegroom gave his father's name as Henry instead of Thomas, and that similar errors are made- in thousands of certificates. The baptism certificate proves that the bridegroom was Thomas' son. Sheridan, in March, 1904, joined the Hollamby Diuce camp, and entered into an agreement, receiving from Hollamby Druce a commission note for G& per cent, of all the property recovered, Coburn promising 3J per ':ent. of the amount paid to Druce. Hence in 1907 che Druce-Portland Company was formed into a new Druce-Portland Company to acquire Sheridan's assets, Sheridan selling the illusory rights. Sheridan withheld his knowledge that if there was an heir it was Edgar Druce and not Hollamby Druce. The latter publicly disassociated himself in this flagrant flotation, but® the fact remains that;his and Coburn's action made it possible.