Hide Articles List

41 articles on this Page

I Druce Disclosures

News
Cite
Share

I Druce Disclosures I MORE CURIOUS EVIDENCE I Witness Who Had No Relations I CHARGE OF PERJURY RESUMED Mrs. Margaret Jane Louise Hamilton (77), who is charged with committing perjury in the Druce proceedings, surrendered to her bail to-day at Bow-street Polioe-court (before Sir Albert de Rutzen). Sir Charles Mathews :p'routed for the Treasury, and Mr. Law- rem:v Hales and Mr. JeHiccw defended Mrs. Hamilton. At the outset, Sir Charles Mathews said he wished in the interest of the prisoner1 to make the following statement at the earliest pos- sible moment, so as to give ample warning. "We have," he said, "discovered since we were here last evidence of a very consider- able payment to Mrs. Hamilton in the month of December, 1906, when apparently a cheque for £ 600 was drawn by Mr. G. Holla-mby Dtuc.c in favour of Mr. Coburn, and of that JE600 we have clearly traced £400 into the banking account of Mrs. Hamilton, and the matter j becomes none the lees important when I turn to the sworn evidence of Mrs. Hamilton, where I find this;— I have not been promised anything for givin,g evidence in this case. I was asked by MT. Druce if I would give evidence, but nothing was said about a reward. Mr. Hales: At that time. Sir Charles Mathews: This is what your client swore, and any comment should be reserved until the proper time. (Reading): I have no purpose to serve in giving evidence. My motive in giving evidenc.e is an honest one. Sir Charles went on to say that when Mrs. Hamilton was arrested Several Bank Notes Were Found in her possession, which could be traced as the proceeds of t-hat £ 6C0. The first witness was Mr. E. H. Bailey, solicitor to the Duke of Portland. Answering Mr. Jellicoe, he said his father and grandfather had acted as solicitors to the fourth and fifth Dukes of Portland. He declared that the photo handed to him by Mr. Jellicoe was not that of the fifth duke in disguise or otherwise. He added that he first heard of the name of Druce in connec- tion with the Duke of Portland in 1896, when Mrs. Hannah Ma.ria Druce called upon Mm. He did not in consequence of what he heard communicate with Mr. Herbert Druce, but in 1898 he did communicate with Me.srs. Fresh- fields, the solicitors for Mr. Herbert Druce. Witness ooitlxl net speak as to certain corre- spondence without the letter books. Mr. Jellicoe asked that witness might be re-called, when t,he correspondence CK) Ll 1, d produced. Sir Charles Mathews sa.id he should cer- tainly not re-call the witness. The cross- examination was wholly irrelevant to the charge of perjury. The Magistrate: I have not intervened because Mr. Jellicoe may have some view of his own cr his instructions. Mr'. Jellicoe suggested that in the Druce proceedings Mr. George Hollamby Druce had to fight not only Mr. Herbert Druce, but Lord Howard de Walden and the Duke of Port la nd. The Magistrate: IN-hat has this to do as to whether defendant told the truth or not ? Mr. Jellicoe: It goes to the identity of someone. Sir Charles Mathews: Of whom? Mr. Jellicoe: You will find out as this case proceeds. Re-examined, the witness said Mrs. Hanaiah Maria Druce first attacked Viscount Port- man, then the Duke of Somerset, next Lord Fitzwilliam, and then the Duke of Portland. Mr. Jellicoe. Where is this poor lady now? Sir Cha.rles Mathews: She is In a Lunatic Asylum Witness added that Mrs. Druoe told him that the fifth' duke was in an asylum at Maidenhead. Mr. Jellicoe: Does the witness suggest she ought to have been there too? Sir Charles Mathews: It would have involved f-,r less trouble had she been, and this is the origin of the great Druce-Portland case. Mr. Herbert Druce was then re-called for c, '-examiii,ation, and Mr.' 'rht,c!k I-?" identiBed the body of T. C. Druce at Highgate Oemetery, was asked to leave the court. The witness said he was born in 1846. His mother told him that he had no other evidence. The Ba.ker-sitreet Baza-ar was stai-t-ed in 1835, and witness got control of it in. 1853. Its capital value was then £ 43,000. The boosts-had all been destroyed. He could not say whose money started it. He could not tell the date of his mother's birth or marriage. Mr. JeHicoe: Have you been able to trace the date of the birth of the gentleman you refer to as father?—No. I suppose you had a grandfather?—I never heard of him. I suppose you had a grandmother?—I never heard of her. Do you know who your father's father was? —I don't. It might have been the Duke of Portla.nd so faT as-you know? Who was your father's mother?—I can't tell you that. Who was your mother's father?—I never 'heard that. Who was your mother's mother?—I don't know. Had you any uncles on your mother's siide? —Never heard of them. Where were you living with the people you describe as your parents when your fajther died ?—Hen don. Will you swear that the business was stalled before 1846?—I should say it was. Will you swear?—I won't swear. How your father acquired the means to start it or who found the money to start it is a blank so far as you are concerned?—Yes. Dirl you mother ever speak to you of her marriage?—No. Did the gentleman you call father ever speak to you about his in.%rriagel-No; he never spoke to me on the Subject. You never bad relations?—No. Does that not seem rather curious to year mind?—No. Do you iuean to tell us that you hare never t-akeh the trouble to aecertaan Who Started the Business as a fact?—I believe it was my father. If thi,, gentleman was your father —— j Witness (hastily): I have no doubt about that. Mr. Jellicoe: You possibly may have no doubt. Witness added that he never heard the Duke of Portland's nanic mentioned a.t the Bassaar. He had no doubt that the pihoto produced was that of his father. Do you know the namie your mother went by when you were born?—No. You don't?—I suppoee it was Mrs. Druce. Did she pass as Mrs. Druce?—1 suppose to. j Did she ever tell you that?—No Counsel: I suppose that the certificate of the marriage gives the name of Armie May as your mother's maiden name?—I believe it does. Now tell me the date of the marriage ?—I cannot tell you. His name may have been Brown. Jones, or Robinson, for all yon kn<+w to the contrary? —I did not think 20. Sir Charles M £ -fthews hotly protested I against this line of cross-examination., and asked the magistrate to allow it to proceed' omly under his sanction. Mr..Miiooe a.?ke& witness whether he could assist. the court to aecertain his mother's actual name. Witness said he could not. (Proceeding.)

I GASHED ms THROAT 1

Church Commission i -I

THE NEW CABINET i

I FROM ALL -QUARTERS,

SANDWICH GIRLS-I

IWeather Forecast ( -——

[No title]

El-LWER'S FBE1ZT EX-LOVER'S…

DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

the Premier To-day I

I VICAR & LABOUR DISPUTE I

IHOTEL TRAGEDY.

I 1500 Damages ClaimedI

In the -Police-courtsi

SIR JAMES LAING AND SONS

WELSH CLUB & PREMIER,

Plays and Players.

TO-DAY'S CHARTERINGS. I

Football.-

Advertising

'CRICKET.I

OFFICIAL, SCRATCHINGS. I I

NEWMARKET NOTES.

Advertising

! PRESSMEN STILL ON STRIKEI

Family Notices

Advertising

POLLING AT PECKHAM

IAir Rifle Shooting

IBOXING

Advertising

-MOVEMENTS -OF LOCAL VESSELS.I

To-day's Finance.

MACKINTOSH BOWLING CLUBI

.! I G.W.R. SUPERANNUATION…

LINCOLN.

I ADDITIONAL ARRIVAL? THIS…

CHEPSTOW STEEPLECHASES AND…

SOUTH WALES MINING SCHOOL

SUNK DURING THE WAR