Site map and contents

Please note that text in red denotes my comments

A letter from Official Solicitor Bowers to me dated 4/3/1987.

Dear Mrs Wright

IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516

Thank you for your letter of 28 February which I have considered carefully. You have already been informed by my secretary, Miss Marshall, that the hearing of my application for an Order approving the sale of the Patient's properties at 61-65 Smithfield, 66-69 Smithfield and 1-11 Francis Street, Belfast will now be heard on Monday next, 9 March, at 10.00 am. It will be for the Judge to consider at that hearing whether the offer of 150,000 for the Patient's interests in the properties should be accepted.
[Well now, Mrs. Bowers, there is something dreadfully wrong with this figure of 150,000. The 'Particulars of Offence' in the Crown Court case of The Queen v Herbert Wright, stated that "Herbert Wright, between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980, in the County Court Division of Belfast, dishonestly obtained from Ryland Vehicle Group Limited 375.000 with the intention of permanently depriving the said Ryland Vehicle Group Limited thereof by deception, namely by falsely representing Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited had a good and marketable title to premises known as 60/65 Smithfield Square, Belfast."
So, between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980, 60/65 Smithfield Square was worth 375,000, and yet in this letter from Official Solicitor Bowers to me, she is prepared to sell 60/65 Smithfield, 66/69 Smithfield and 1-11 Francis Street over seven years later for 150,000. What is going on, Mrs. Bowers?????

In addition to this, Carson & McDowell made out a conveyance dated the 3rd day of August 1987 for 30/31 Smithfield which was a much less valuable property than Freddie's at 60/65 and the consideration was, wait for it, 355,000. So what was the Official Solicitor's Office up to and what sort of a Judge failed to see what was going on?]


In the second half of your letter you refer to property in Francis Street about which you have spoken by telephone to Mr Russell of the Department of the Environment.
Having studied the files of earlier correspondence on this point I am unable to understand why you should persist in misrepresenting the clear explanation which has been given to you (and to others) by Mr Hall when he was acting in the matter.

The Department of the Environment published notices in the local press, dated 16 December 1983, which referred INCORRECTLY to properties on the North side of Francis Street as part of an area to be vested by the Department for a car park - which has (long ago) been laid out and completed. So far from suggesting to Mr Russell (or anyone else) that the Patient "did not own the odd numbers in Francis Street" Mr Hall was concerned to point out that the Patient did (and still does) own the leasehold interest in the premises formerly known as Nos 1-11 Francis Street but that the Notice published by the Department of the Environment was NOT intended to extend to those properties. Mr Russell accepted that point as Mr Hall confirmed in paragraph 6 (on the third page) of his letter to you of 30 July 1984 - which I quote:

"6. Property at Francis Street - Vesting Order.

... I spoke by telephone to Mr Russell on 2 February [1984] and confirmed that the reference in a statutory Notice which had appeared in the local press, dated 16 December 1983, to properties including Nos 1-23 Francis Street had been made in error. Mr Russell acknowledged that the properties affected by the proposed Vesting Order will include only those premises which lie on the south side of Francis Street whereas Nos 1-23 lie on the north side of Francis Street. I sent a confirmatory letter on that day to Mr Russell and sent copies of it for reference to Mr McCracken representing your interest and also to Miss Sullivan from whom I had received the original communication."

In my view the formal definition of the Patient's interests in premises located on the North side of Francis Street (comprising ODD NUMBERS only) has been put to you and to your solicitors long ago and it is not a matter about which there need be any doubt or confusion - or further correspondence with me. [Yes, Mrs. Bowers, you really do not like my questions in my quest for the truth, do you?]

Yours sincerely

DEIRDRE S BOWERS (Mrs)
Official Solicitor


Site map and contents