SOLICTORS'S £4000 CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 67, 19 March 1910, Page 17

SOLICTORS'S £4000 CLAIM.

JTJDGETS BTEONG COM2ffiB2OTS W lA! STRANGE CAKE. An extraordinary termination came to a case at Devon Assizes in. which. Mr. Grylls, solicitor, of Dauneeston, claimed £4000, from Mr. Brydges Willyams, ' v ex-High. Sheriff of Cornwall and a former M-P. for Trnro,' and Mrs. Olive Alice Simcoe Willyams, wife of Captain Hugh Willyams, nephew of the first-Baincd defendant, on two promissory notes. Mr. Grylls in his evidence stated that after Captain WUlyams married the young couple started on a life of extravagance, and soon became involved in financial difficulties. Mrs. WiHyoins consulted him, ■ and stated that she was to receive £4000 from Mr Brydes Willyams in August, 1003. He gathered that t ,hls sum was owing In. connection .with some business matters. But later ilxs. WOJyams produced letters alleging certain relations between her and Mr. Brydges Willyams, from which it appeared that "the money he was to pay arose out of these relations. As to the issuing of promissory notes, the witness said that when he went to Mr. Brydges Willyams to verify his signature. Captain and Mrs. Willyams met him, said their uncle was ill, took away the notes, and returned with them saying their uncle acknowledged his signature. Subsequently Mr. Brydges Williams repudiated having signed any notes in favour of Captain or ilrs. Willyams. At a later stage of the proceedings Mr. Clavell Salter, K.C., said the plaintiff, his client, would not carry the case further. Mr. BTdyges Willyams, sworn, denied having signed the promissory notes, and also denied having written the letters referred to. The jury formally returned a verdict for the defendant Mr. Justice Lcvrrance said that no one could help congratulating the defendant on being able to clear himself entirely of the foul charge which, had been brought against him, ami when he said "foul" charge he did not mean the trumpery £4000, but the foulest charge that was ever brought against a man by -those letters. No one who had listened to the case could doubt that ■there was something greater than the grossest negligence on the part of the plaintiff, who had run the risk of whether the defendant dare appear In the witnessbox or not. Fortunately, the defendant was strong-minded enough not to be blackmalted, and for that reason had triumphed that day. This was a matter which, must form the foundation of some proceedings hereafter on somebody's part.