THE "BOGUS BURIAL."

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 72, 18 December 1907, Page 7

THE "BOGUS BURIAL."

WHERE IS THE PROOF?

CALDWELL'S FLIGHT—VALUE OF

OTHER EVIDENCE. OPENING OF THE DEFENCE. ST TEKGIIAFH—HIUSS ASSOCIATION" —COPYRIGHT. London, December 16. Tho report 1 is now confirmed of the departure for America of Robert Caldwell, the septuagenarian witness, whose vivid evidence was recently abandoned by the . Portland claimant, and who, though his place of residence was watched, contrived to get away from London before a warrant for conspiracy and perjury could be served on him. When the hearing was resumed of the charge of ptrjury brought by claimant against Herbert Druce, Mr. Plowden, the Magistrate, referring to the flight of Caldwell, asked what value was now attached to other testimony regarding the mock funeral, particularly Mrs. Hamilton's vivid corroboration. Mr. Atherley Jones, K.C., who. appears for the prosecution, asked that her evidence should be treated separately. Mr, Horace Avory, K.C., in opening for the defence, characterised the prosecution as a mass of contradictions and inconsistenciei. POSSIBLE RECOIL OF CHARGES. A GENERAL LIABILITY. WITNESS OF T. C. DRUCE'S DEATH. GRAVE MAY BE OPENED. (Rec. Dec. 17, 11.35 p.m.) London, December 17. Mr. Avory contonded that every ono of tho promoters of and subscribers to the Druce companies were liable to be prosecuted for chnmporty and maintenance. (The offence of champerty is defined as " a maintenance of any man in an action or suit, upon condition to ■ have part of the tilings—he it land or goods—when it is recovered.") Mr. Avory added that probably the promoters of tho companies would eventually bo charged with conspiracy in preferring a false claim to the Portland and othor estates, and George Hollamby Druco with conspiracy to falsely accuse tho defendant, Herbert Druce, and to swindle foolish subscribers. Defendant was willing, if tho intorcsts of justice demanded it, to allow the grave to be opened. Catherine Bailey, for many years in T. C. Druce's employ, testified that Druco died in her presence at his Mill Hill residenco in December, 1864. The caso was adjourned until Friday. AN OLD STORY.' now TIIIO ACTION ORIGINATED. Thb document on which tho present charge of.jpprjury against Herbert Druce is primarily based was sworn on March 28, 1898, as an affidavit in tho Consistory Court; and in December, 1901, Herbert Druco followed it up by evidenco. Tho, catiso of the affidavit and tlio cvidonco being tendered was that in 1898, and in fact prior to that year, the question' of tho bogus burial had been put to tho courts In & rebate proceedings brought by Mrs. Anna [aria Druce. According to counsel for claimant (George Hollamby Druce), Thomas Charles Druce, by marriage with a lady named Criclcmor, had a son George Druce, who 1 was tho father of the claimant,, George Hollamby Druco. Thomas Charles'Druce', by'a "later' marriage with a Miss May, had two sons, Herbert. Druce (the present accused), and Walter Druce, who is dead, ''and who left a widow, Mrs. Anna Maria Druce. It was Anna Maria Druce who brought the .probate proceedings, and thoir object was to secure revocation of probate in the estate of T. C. Druce. Probate had been granted under T. C. Druce's w.ill to executors, and tho main ground upon which Anna Maria founded her claim for the revocation of that will was that it was a fiction that T. C. Druce died in 18IH, and that the fimoral- which took place subsequent ■ to his alleged death was a spurious ono. In other words, Mr. T. C. Druce was another person. In opening the case for the perjtiry prosecution before Magistrate Plowden, Mr. Atherley Jones, counsel for claimant, said: " Mrs. Druce made an application to tho Consistory Court of tho Diocese of London for the purpose of obtaining an order for the oponing of the coffin in, which, it was alleged, T. C. Druco was buried. An order was made cx-parte by tho Consistory Court for the oponing of the grave. Prohibition was granted by tho Court of Appeal, the proprietor of tho grave not having consentbd. , " Now, tho owner of the grave was tho defendant, Herbert Druco. It is not a grave for ono person,' but is, I believe, a vault, and it contained, and does contain, other bodies. Herbert Druco was as late 'as the year 1893 registered as the Owner of that vault. Ho'refused his consent, and has persisted in his refusal to allow that vault to bo opened. Permission, however, so far as I have been able to gather, was givon for tho gravo to bo opened, but thoro wpre difficulties, and tho gravo has not been opened. "In tho courso of;tho proceedings in the Consistory Court Herbert Druce made an affidavit in which, having. alleged, inter alia that he was the son of T. C. Druce, whose doath is alleged to have taken place in the year lS&t, he stated that his father had died in that year, that he had seen him in his coffin, and, that ho had subsequently seen the vault niul 'found tho coffin intact." . After leading Herbert Druce's affidavit.lo tho effect stated, counsel said: " My client, George Hollamby Druce, is the grandson of Mr. Thomas Charles Druco by his-first wife. Assuming there had been an intestacy, ho would, on tho death of Mr. T. C. Druce—that is, if T. C. Druco was T. C. Druce—have succeeded to the wholo of tho property." Mr. Atherley Jones added that G. H. Draco, who had been living in Australia, had no knowledge at tho time of the proceedings taken by Anna Maria Druce, but heard of them subsequently. Knowing that in tho event of an intestacy ho would have 6iicceeded as the eldest son, and hearing also that T. C. Druce was not in fnct T. C. Druce, but the late fifth Duke of Portland, G. H. Druco decided to intervene in tho action, and became a party to tho probate suit.