DRUCIANA.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 29, 4 February 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

DRUCIANA.

LONBOX, December i! -

A .XEW CLAIMANT,

((From our London Correspondent.)

On Saturday Lasi- the .Druce Case

took a fresh turn, and a nasty one, for -Mrs Druce. "Whilst that lady was asking the Marlborough-street Magis-

trate for a summons against a man claiming to issue Druce Portland Bouds by virtue of a power of attorney which he alleges Mrs Druce gave him, the public were discussing a. statement to the effect, that a new Druce claimant had come upon the scene in the person of Mr. William Druce, who claims to be a grandson of Mr T. C. of that ilk. According to the ncweoiner's tale, the late Thomas Charles began his matrimonial adventures in 1816, and begat one daughter and four sons. One of these sons, George by name, went to Australia and was lost sight of; but the new claimant is said to bo hiss son and heir. If he can prove these things, William Druce will of course take' precedence of Mrs Anna- Maria Brace's son, Sydney George, who is a grandson of T. C. Druce by his son Walter, who was the eldest of the children resulting from the union of T. C Druce with Miss May. The introchiction of a descendant of T. C. Druce by an earlier marriage completely alters the aspect of the case as it stands, for if William Druce can prove that he is ihe person he claim:; to be, he will not only inherit tha Highgate Vault in which Mrs Druce takes so keen an interest, but will take Sydney George's place in the action regardhrg the Baker-street Bazaar and other property pending in the Probate Court. Moreover, if it be proved that T. C. Druce was really the fifth Duke of Portland, Mr Wm. Druce will'be entitled to the estates and their revenues, providing of course George Druce was the eldest son of his father, or that his elde> brothers, if any, died without male issue. But if William Druce's story be true, it would seem tolerably certain that the Duke and T. 0. Druce were separate entities. The Duke of Portlaud, without a shadow of doubt, died in London on December 6th, 1870, at fhe age of 79, and therefore in 181G the date of the alleged first marriage of Druce would have been but sixteen years of age. Mr Druce's death record, however, states that he died on December 28th, 18(J4, at the age of 70, so the ISKS marriage would have occurred when he was 22 years of age. The wedding with Annie May, a woman with whom it appears he had liv*\] for some years occurred in October, ISSI. the groom being described as a 'widower,' a fact which certainly suggests a previous matrimonial escapade.

Whether, however, there be any truth in the new claimant's story or not, the appearance of William Druce is most inopportune for Anna Maria, whose Bonds are now on. offer. Taking four to one about Sydney Georg-e's succession to the Portland Estates and title would be poor business under any circumstances, but with another claimant in the field the odds are altogether preposterous, and I'm afraid the Bonds Avill meet with a very poor market

Mrs Druce. who apparently for the convenience of inquisitive • pressmen has set up offices at 19 Queen Victoria .Street, City, professes of course to be. entirely undisturbed by the apparition of William Druce. Even if he be as he says the son of George Druce, that will make no difference, for Geo. Druce, says xVnna Maria, > w,°s the eldest of the seven children born to T. C. Druce and Annie May before they regularised their situation, and has therefore no locus standi whatever.

A DEADLOCK.

Meanwhile, in connection with the Druce Case proper, to wit, the fight between Mrs Druce and the executors of the late Thomas Charles's will over the Highgate coffin, the game of legal' 'general post' goes merrily on. Three weeks ago Dr. Tristram issued a faculty ordering the opening of the vault, but the Cemetery Company politely intimated that until the Home Secretary said 'Open Sesame.' and Mr Herbert Druce consented, the sanctity of the tomb should not be outraged if they could prevent it. Dr. Tristram thus flouted proceeded to issue a eruption calling upon the Cemetery Company to show cause for refusing to obey him, and held a special sittingon Tuesday for the purpose of hearing the Company's excuse. The court was crowded when the Chancellor took his seat, the public evidently anticipating some fun. But thej' were disappointed. Upon the Chancellor taking his seat, Mr Danckwerts, Q.C., rose and swiftly explained that the Cemetery Company, for whom he was acting, was not really appearing before the Consistory Court, but he himself had, out of courtesy to Dr. Tristram, come to explain that the citation had. not been properly served, and that, moreover, a rule of prohibition had been applied for and secured in the High Court that morning under which the judges decided that all proceedings, so far as the Consistory Court was concerned, should be stayed. The rule would be served in the usual way, and until the arguments had taken place before the Courts nothing further could be done.

Mr Statham remarked that after the rule had been discharged, as it Would be, the directors of the Cemetery Com-pany-could be served with a citation to appear before the Consistory Court, but until the discharge of the rule nothing could be done.

The Chancellor promptly accepted counsel's fiat, and with a decisive 'The Court is adjourned' disappeared.

The judges who .granted the rule nisi which brought about this deadlock were Messrs. Wills and Bruce. Their grounds for doing1 so may be briefly stated. In the first place, they hold Dr. Tristram to be wrongin his .contention that the Home. Secretary's license is unnecessary; and in the second, they maintain that the Chancellor has no power to make the Company parties to a decree made between other people; and thirdly, they hold that as the majority of the directors, proprietors, and the secretary of the Company reside beyond the limits of the Diocese of London, they cannot be cited to appear before the Consistory Court; and lastly, Justices Wills and Bruce agreed that the Consistory Court has no right to deal with civil rights, as it proposed to do by the citation. Their lordships, however, made it tolerably

clear in the course of the proceedings that the rule of the Cemetery Company which forbids the opening of a grave without the written consent of the owner would certainly not be effective should the Home Secretary see fit to grant, a license for the opening of the vault. In the interests of justice, said .Judge Wills, that kind of regulation which creates an obligation between the Cemetery Company and fhe owner of the vault must necessarily be over-ridden. And Judge Bruce nodded emphatic confirmation.

It is satisfactory to know on such authority that there is some one in the land whose fiat to open the coffin cannot be made the subject of legal wire-drawing, but the Home Secretary apparently conceives that he owes it to the dignity of his office to keep the public on tenter hooks as long as possible, and until he relents it ia apparently feasible for the opponents of Mrs Driice to keep that huly on the run from one court to another as they hi»o done for the past twelve months. The Druce Case, is certainly v standing tribute to the propriety of Mr Rumble's aphorism. T'ustcrip't.—Wilful woman will have her way, and Mrs Druce, whatever her faults, has certainly a will of her own. Her solicitors, Messrs. F. J. McArthur, nnd her counsel, Mr Arnold iStiitha.ni tuul Mr Campbell Johnson have always opposed the issue of Bonds for the purpose of obtaining money lo pursue the claim to the Portland (''states, but Anna Maria, in spite of entreaties and threats, has taken her own course, and yesterday the prospectus of the Bonds appeared in all the leading papers. The first result, as was anticipated, is that Messrs. McArthur have published a letter repudiating all connection with the. Bonds, and stating that they are not and do not desire to be retained for the petition to thfi House of Lords mentioned in the advertisement:* thereof, but are only acting for Mrs Druce in the matters of and incident lul to the Probate and Consistory Court proceedings, Mr Statham and his colleague have also given the public to understand that their disapprobation of Airs Druce's proceedings in connection with the bonds will lead to their defection from her cause after the arguments on the prohibition are concluded. These, it is understood, will be heard early in the New Year.

To most people thft defection of solicitors and counsel would be a terrible 'set-back,' but Mrs Druee isn't an ordinary person by any means, and seems to view the action of her legal advisers; as an incident of no importance. In the course of an interview last evening she express. eel herself determined, in spite of all delays and interventions by other parties, to carry the case to the Housa of Lords. The nature of her movement there will be, she explained, a formal petition to give her issue the title and estates of the Duke of Portland. 'I fancy the little lady is making a grievous blunder in alienating the legal gentlemen who have fought her battles thus far.