Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

My letter to solicitor McCracken dated 4/2/1984.

Dear McCracken
I enclose a cutting from the Belfast Telegraph which may be to Freddie's interest and perhaps put you in the picture why it was necessary to divest Freddie of all his property and put my elder brother under the care of his doctor for over a year owing to the pressure put on him by the authors of these irregularities previously discussed.
I have gone over the list of houses made up by Mr Deane and find it difficult to understand why he has omitted to state the most necessary information viz., valuation and square footage. This list of properties has no relevance whatsoever as none of them are in the same class as 14 Castlehill Road so naturally I consider this list useless and misleading!
Mr. Hall has found it necessary to obtain his own independent valuer instead of the independent valuer obtained by McCrory & Jefferson. Why? Surely he would not wish it to be thought that he is biased? Why should the valuation more favourable to Freddie be rejected out of hand by Mr. Hall? However it does appear that in any discussion or argument his own voice is the only one he wishes to be heard.

You have already had some experience of this during our meeting in Mr. Hall's office when we were not allowed to intervene in his oration which lasted two and a half hours when we were forced to excuse ourselves, realising that our presence was futile.

Mr. Hall appears to have accepted Mr. Bertie Wright's version of who wanted 14 Castlehill Road sold. My mother has stated that Mr. C. Gilpin told her the house was too big, though we never thought that and that she should sell it. Mr. Gilpin's solicitor, Mr. B. Wright, had no authority to do so without reference to the Courts. Is it not a fact that none of the numerous actions taken by Mr. C. Gilpin and his solicitors Messrs Tughan & Co., were in any way for the benefit of Freddie? Does Mr. Hall not see or want to see that it was Mr. Gilpin and his friends who benefited most from these actions?
Would anyone in their right mind buy a house at 4 Norwood Gardens which at the time needed extensive repairs and renovation and at least 10,000 spent on it, if they were in any way thinking of Freddie's welfare?
You must remember that Freddie had no bargaining power whatsoever and was taken advantage of in every way leaving him with a pittance that would never have kept him for life. Were these facts not known to Mr. Hall and if not they should have been?

I remember, Mr. McCracken, in your office, that you got most upset when I mentioned Freddie's home. Then again when you requested my presence in the Law Courts to meet two junior counsels and Mr. Robert McCartney QC. The only discussion was Freddie's home and Mr. McCartney also got extremely angry, pointing his finger at me and telling me that the Judge would not like me very much. I was so upset that I can only remember getting up, thanking you, Mr. McCracken, and somehow making my way to the car.

[The content of this paragraph is very important]Though I value your help and Mr. McCartney's assistance more than I can put into words, I still must insist that I have more than a moral duty to see that my father's wishes are complied with. I feel it is my duty to protect Freddie just as much as you and Mr. McCartney found it necessary to protect Mr. Jemphrey and I do hope you will find this fair comment. After all, if Mr. Jemphrey is innocent of any wrongdoing and he and Freddie are the injured parties, then both are entitled to the protection and guidance of the Court. Miss Sullivan told my elder brother that on Mr. Gilpin's instructions that, had he been able to buy Freddie's showroom, he would have had no proper title to this property. Therefore does this not also apply to his home which is his most valuable pessession? This leaves also Freddie's title to 4 Norwood Gardens open to question. If Freddie is legally incompetent to sell anything does it not follow that he is incompetent to buy?

I wish to refer to the Report of the Official Solicitor, a copy of which I had to borrow from my sister Vera. At best, parts can be read with difficulty and the remainder is completely illegible. Does the Official Solicitor wish this report to be read by those vitally interested in what information is fed to the Judge? To avoid any misunderstanding could Mr. Hall be persuaded to supply legible copies of his Report immediately so that it can be studied in good time before the Court convenes on the 13th February.

There is one final point I would like to mention which Mr. Hall appears to give more coverage to than any other, and that is the case of my mother and Mrs B. Hamilton.
You must understand Mr. McCracken that Mr. C. Gilpin and Messrs Tughan & Co., took complete control of my mother's and my sister's as well as Freddie's affairs.

My mother was 78 years of age at this time and, like most old people, she was susceptable to flattery and certainly no match for this Mr. Charles Gilpin. How could she match him when estate agents, solicitors and bank managers appear to do his bidding without question. All she did was take the money that Messrs Tughan & Co and Mr. Gilpin allowed her to have from Freddie's estate. Could you please give this information to the Judge? I feel he would have more understanding and compassion than Mr. Hall who appears to be content to accept every word that come from rather tainted sources.
I appreciate very much your own and Mr. McCartney's support and I do hope now that the air has been cleared a little we can work together to see that truth may prevail and in so doing restore a little of the confidence that I had lost in the legal profession.

My efforts over these years have been purely and absolutely in Freddie's interest but also bearing in mind my father's intentions for his son.

I hope you will be good enough to pass on my thanks to Mr McCartney.

Sincerely,

(Mrs) Eileen Wright.


Site map and contents