Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE DRUCE CASE.

AN INTERESTING STORY. Received Jan. 31, 11.38 p.m. Loudou, Jan. 31. The "Daily Chronicle* says neither George Liollainby Druce uor G. Druce, Limited, will be able !to continue thp civil action. Hollamby Druce from the outset concealed essential facts, and based his appeal for public support on a deliberate reticence and misrepresentation. Tbe "Chronicle" claims to possess documents showing that Sheridan was associated with Anna I Druce's claini3 until her litigation ceased, and that he sold for £200 to i Trewinnard, who held Charles Edgar I Druce's power of attorney in London then, certain information which was expected to be useful in supporting Edgar's claim. Then in 1903 Trewinnard attended a conference between Hollamby Druce and MrUoburn in the chambers of the barrister in London, and informed Hr>llamby Druce he was not the heir while Edgar was alive. It was then resolved to cable to Edgars solicitors to renew his power of attorney granted to Trewinnard in 3899. Tba reply referred them to a iirrn of solicitors in London, who advised them that the Druce family's claims were based on insufficient evidence, and were not worth pursuing. Mr Cobun then went to Australia and secured an agreement whereby Edear professed to transfer his rights and pledged himself not to interfere witb Hollaniby's proceedings on condition of sharing the SDoil in the event of success. The only basis for the claim advanced was an error in Charles Crickmer Druce's marriage j certificate; inasitch as the bridegoom gave his father's name as Uenry instead of Thomas. Similar errors were made in thousands of certificates. The baptismal certificate proves that the bridegroom was Thomas's son. Sheridan, in March 1901, joiiied the Hollamby camp, ami entered into an agreement, receiving Hollamby's cointuission note for 6>£ per cent of all property recovered, Coburn proj iiiisincfJJio per cent of the amount paid to Druce. Hence in 1907, .the Druce- Portland Company, \viiich formed the new Druce-Porfcland Company to acquire Sheridan's eases, Sheridan selling illusory light s. He withheld his knowledge that if there was an heir it was Edgar , not Holalniby. The latter publicly disassociated himself in this flagrant flotation, but the fact remains that his and Cob urn's action made it possible.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TC19080201.2.21.5

Bibliographic details

Colonist, Volume L, Issue 12155, 1 February 1908, Page 4

Word Count
370

THE DRUCE CASE. Colonist, Volume L, Issue 12155, 1 February 1908, Page 4

THE DRUCE CASE. Colonist, Volume L, Issue 12155, 1 February 1908, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert