Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

A letter from Official Solicitor Hall to solicitor Fearon dated 18.3.1986.

Dear Mr Fearon,

Your client: Mrs Eileen Wright

I have received a letter this morning from Mr R T Millar, the Legal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice, enclosing a copy of the Agreement dated 6 March 1986 which I submitted to the Court at the last hearing on Friday 7 March, which was approved by the Judge, together with an unsigned typewritten document dated 10 March 1986 which purports to represent the views of "the Andrews family". I enclose a copy of the latter document at the foot of which I have shown a facsimile of the envelope in which it was received - bearing the postmark "Belfast 7.30 pm 11 Mch 1986". The style of the comments made in the document and the distinctive handwriting on the envelope suggest that your client was involved in its production. [What a remarkable piece of detective work, Mr. Hall! You know very well that what we said was true.]

Mr Millar informs me that the Judge, Mr Justice MacDermott, has directed that copies of the douments be sent to solicitors representing the interests of members of the family and that an explanation be given to the Court as to why the family are now demurring following the last hearing at which they were represented. [Isn't it remarkable how the truth and its persistent presentation can move even a High Court judge!].
I am sending copies of this letter and of the enclosures to Messrs James Boston & Sullivan (representing Mr William J Andrews), Messrs Alex Stewart & Son (representing Mrs Betty Hamilton) and Messrs McAteer & Co (representing Mrs Minetta Andrews). Further copies are being sent for information to Mrs Vera Douglas.

It may be helpful if I place on record some brief points relating to the matters raised in the latest document:
[Of course you felt obliged to defend yourself in advance, but it is now being used in evidence against you.]

1. The engagement of Messrs Alex Murdoch & Deane to act as independent surveyors and valuers on behalf of the Patient was approved by the Court in December 1983. [You know that the Court was not given all the available evidence] Following the communication to the Court of the opinion of the District Valuer, by letter dated 19 December 1985, as to the value of the Smithfield properties no recommendation was made by me or on my behalf for their sale at this stage.
[I try to check up on everything you say Mr. Hall and look at what I turned up. Of course it is said that it takes a liar to have a good memory and there is just no way you can cover up all your dirty footprints. This is why a website is just so very, very effective. You not only recommended the sale of Freddie's Smithfield properties, you actually stated in writing on 22/11/1985, quote, "I have made an application to the Court for an Order approving the proposed sale." What sort of a man are you to be in the position you are in?]

2. If your client (or another member of the family) wishes to raise an objection to the proposed letting of the Smithfield properties to the present occupiers please let me know the basis upon which that objection is made.
[Ah, you can command the legal representatives of members of our family to give you our information well in advance of a Court hearing, but you make sure that we do not even get the information you are going to present to the Court - see here!]

3. I do not understand the reference to "5,000 per year".
The figure quoted by counsel on behalf of the Patient at the last sitting was for a short-term letting with rent paid quarterly in advance at the rate of 12,000 per annum.

4. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement dated 6 March 1986 (as amended), which was submitted to the Court on 7 March and approved, makes it clear in terms that the sum of 45,125 has been recovered [No, Mr. Hall, this 'Agreement' states, quote, "a further sum of 45,125.00 will be paid by Tughan & Co, subject to the approval of the Court, in respect of rental income", it does NOT say it has been recovered and I wonder if it was ever recovered. If it was recovered, where did it go? Of course it was not recovered if 35,000 plus interest was given back to the crooks who plundered Freddie's estate.] on behalf of the Patient "in respect of rental income (which should have been secured on behalf of the Patient from his properties at 62-65 Smithfield and at 66-69 Smithfield and 1-11 Francis Street, Belfast in the period from 1 November 1975 up to 28 February 1986)."

5. If your client (or another member of the famiy) objects to the repayment of 35,000 to the solicitors representing Messrs Tughan & Co please let me know the grounds for that objection.

6. Accounts in respect of the use made of the Patient's assets and income in the period following the death of his father, Frederick Andrews senior, on 14 July 1972 until Mr Drennan's appointment as Committee on 11 January 1979 may be the subject of further scrutiny in relation to the Chancery action brought against the Patient by his sister Mrs Betty Hamilton (under record number 1985 No 778). If your client (or any other member of the family, apart from Mrs Hamilton) wishes to enquire into other accounts about which I have not already reported to the Court please indicate what they are and for what purpose it is suggested they are now required.

7. I have chosen to regard the questions raised in the penultimate paragraph of the document as being purely rhetorial but if they are not you will be able to advise your client on any of the 3 points which have been raised.

The review of the case has already been re-listed before the Judge on friday 11 April next in relation to th question of casts. Please let me have your replies to the questions arising from the latest communication not later than Monday 7 April so that I may report to the Judge in good time before the next hearing.

Yours sincerely,

Official Solicitor.

Site map and contents