THE DRUCE CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13422, 21 October 1907, Page 2

THE DRUCE CASE.

ROiIANVCE , OF '9B.

THE ESSENTIAL FACTS.

Latest . cable' nrssages are aeviving the Druce case. The essential facts were published., in .1888. The claimant was then Mrs. Anna,Druce. Fer several years/Mrs. believed herself to be the widow -of the eldest legitimate son of Thomas/.Charles Druce, of the Baker Street Bazaar, made unavailing -efforts to compel the Consistory Court to grant her an order to open the grave of her. husband's father in Highgate Cemetery. In this grave, she alleged, ,was buried not -the body of Thomas Druce, but a quantity of lead. Druce, she said, was really, the fifth Duke of Portland, who did not die until 1879. Unfortunately for Mrs. Druce, .'the. facts as to' the death of Thomas ,;Druce wetie sworn to by doctors and a housekeeper, and the courts refused to grant the order. The Druce case was beginning to lose interest, when a new claimant'.;appeared in the person of Mr George Hollamby Druce. an Australian carpenter.' He claimed to have a better right than Mrs. Anna Druce to take <ai interest in the Portland claim, inasmuch: as. he was (the: son of the eldest son of Thomas', Charles Druce by a fir-sfc' marriage with Elizabeth Crickmer at Bury, St. Edmund's, on October . 19> • 1816. Thf question that the courts are how «sked. to decide is, Was this man'Druce, the owner of the bazaar, grandfather of George j.j.01lamby Druce, reallv the fifth Duke of Portland? -

An 'informal meeting of the shareholders of G. H. Druoe Company (Ltd.) was held in London on June 21. Mr G. H. Druce, the latest claimant,, presided. The directors' interim report showed that of the. ordinary shares allotted to Mr Druce as 2s paid, there had been issued, in the form of bearer warrants, 5380 shares, upon which the company had 1 received payment from Mr Druce of 18s per share, making a total of £4842, the whole of -which sum had been expended upon the 1 objects of the company . Fuller details . were not forthcoming ac the meeting, but the secretary said that he was -prepared to supply all necessary information to shareholders.

Mr G. H. Druce, the report continued, had taken proceedings for the purpose of establishing that he was the grandson of the fifth Duke of Portland, as it was alleged that Thomas Charles Druce, of the Baker Street. Bazaar, was the same person as the fifth Duke'. Then comes a statement of evidence received from ' America to prove that the alleged burial of Thomas Charles Druce was in fact a mock burial, and' that the coffin described as containing his body held nothing but strips of lead, screwed down and held in position with brass clamps. As the estimated cost of the approaching trial would amount to something like £4OOO or £SOOO, a further 3000 shares wei'e being put upon the market in a month's time at £4 per share; but- present shareholders would be entitled in the interval to purchas-e- such shares to the number of their present holdings at £2 per share. ' ■. Mr Thomas K. V. Coburn (Mr Druce's private legal adviser) said that upon the return from Australia ,about, the beginning of October, of the commission" sent thene t6 take certain steps regarding Mr Druce's pedigree, legal proceedings would be taken without delay. From.lso to 200 witnesses j for tfie claimant would be summoned at the company's expense during the.progress of the trial which was going to be the I

biggest trial -ever heard in this country. Mr Edmund Kim-bey,, solicitor for Mr Druce; referred to' seven mysterious letters, some of them written by Charles Dickers, which, with other original documents, wer e in the. possession-of a-New Zealand lady, "who was ' on.-her way to England. These papers, howevi'i', were stolen during the voyage. The novelist, in one of the letters, was said to allude to the eccentric Duke as." Old. Resurrection.", in connection with 'circumstances'- forming:.-the' banis of tiro present- claim. " The company, lie said, knew why those documents had been stolen, and expected! shortly to find the thief. If Mr Druce did not- succeed in his.case, it would be a gross public scandal.

The Master of ths Rolls and Lord Justic? Kennedy heard. an appeal on July 30 in the- cose, of Druce v. Lord Howard de Walden and otheis. The plaintiff appealed from an order of Mr Justice Pickford, sitting in Chambers, who refused' to allow a commission to issue to examine a gentlem\n named Caldwell, a connsel-at-law in New York.

Mr A.. iStatham, counsel for the appellant said 'the. witness who they nought to examine- was a very important one, and. 'he.- should, if possible ,be brought over to London for the- trial of the action. If a commission wera sent to New York, the plaintiff undertook to pay the defendants all such costs ap the judge at ths trial might think proper,..'whatever the >iesulfc of the action might be. Several thousands of pounds had be-.-n spent- in preparing the case for trial, and it, would be a very eei-ious thing if evidence was lost through a technical objection. The other side had examined Mr•-. Shaw, Mr Wood, Lady Cork, and Lady Manvers, in addition 10. six aged witn-etsfir, and the plainliji had not taken any objection to this course. Lord Justice Kennedy: Is the trial likely to come on soon?

Mr Rowlatt (for the defendants) : Ths pleadings have been closed, and the case will' probably come on in the next legal year. - ■ . '■/' '

The appeal was dismissed with costs, the Master of the Rolls- saying' the court- did not wish to preclude the. plaintiff from making ■another application next , term on further ' V .