Dear D C Patterson,
On Friday last at the Law Courts I was told by my solicitor without any explanation whatsoever that Freddie was having returned to him his showroom and ground.
The reason given to my brother Billy by his solicitor was that the £35,000 paid for this property by Mr. C. Gilpin was now supposed to have been rent paid in advance. Are we still, after taking six years crawling out of the mire of this closed shop created by these solicitors, going to have to go through this experience again in order that justice may be seen to be done. Have we still to listen to this garbage from these so-called custodians of the law? Is this the information they are feeding the Judge on our behalf - we have no way of finding out.
Are we now to get down on our knees and be forever thankful that this property has been returned to Freddie and then keep our mouths shut? What other revelations may we be expected to hear now that these solicitors have until Feb 13 to think up some other likely tale?
We are putting all our faith and trust in your hands, Mr. Patterson. After all if it hadn't been for your tenacity of purpose, your singlemindedness and keen grasp and insight into this whole sorry mess and, of course, your ability to listen to us, this case would never have seen the light of day.
Who was the rent agent for this showroom? Who made up the agreement? Who fixed the rent? How long was the lease? Was there ever a rent review? Will Freddie receive interest on the £35,000 so-called rent and again what about income tax?
We would also like to know why we are not allowed to discuss the sale of Freddie's home. Both our solicitors heckles get to fever pitch if we dare to mention this valuable piece of property that my father left to Freddie long before his death.
[This letter will be completed when I find the rest of it.]