MRS HAMILTON'S EVIDENCE

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7349, 2 December 1907, Page 2

MRS HAMILTON'S EVIDENCE

LONDON, November 30. In the Druce case Mr Avory asked Mrs Hamilton: "Has it not struck you as a curious coincidence that the gentleman whom you call your father and your foster-father both died the same year?" Mrs Hamilton promptly replied: "No. It never occurred to me." Mr Avory referred to certain omissions in her testimony before the Queen's Bench, where she stated she lived in Gower Street up to 1868, and did not inform Mr Bargrave. Deahe that she was living with her husband at Liverpool in 1858 to 1871. "I often visited London and stayed with my father in Gower Street. I was never asked about Liverpool." Mr Avory: "They, were not aware of it at that time, but we found it out." Mr Avory quoted evidence _ given before the Queen's Bench Division, showing that Mrs Hamilton did not mention the lumps on the Duke's face, and suggested that! her present testimony was based on Caldwell's. When confronted with the discrepencies thus revealed, Mrs Hamilton blamed the stenographers. She confessed that she had confused dates, or, she declared, the questions put to her on a previous occasion had misled her. Replying to further questions by Mr Avory regarding the handwriting of the Duke, the witness stated that lie was able to write almost any hand h© liked. The Duke told.her 121 reply to a question she asked him that the mock funeral cost £1000. Witness supposed the officials were bribed, or they would never have taken the coffin without a certificate.

Mrs Hamilton, replying to Mr Plowden, said that between 1866 and 1876 her father spoke to her abo\it Caldwell going to do a good thing for the Duke's nose. She supposed he meant Caldwell. She knew that the Duke's nose looked nice nip to 1864, though .if it were closely examined one might see a little mark. Afterwards she saw that the lump had disappeared. The Duke used to refer to an outsido correspondent, though her father was not aware why he wanted a woman secretary. ■ ■ ■ • . ■■■

Tlie new Druce-Portland Company, through Mr Pritcharcl, one of the directors, applied to Mr Justice Joyce for an injunction restraining Mr Blakiston < and Captain Hall, co-direc-tors, parting with moneys in their possession. Mr Pritchard's counsel stated that Hollamby Druce's claim must fail because Charles Edgar Druce, grandson of an 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 adjourn^ cd.