Dear Mrs. Douglas,
IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK ANDREWS - 1978 No 516
Your letter of 3 April addressed to Mr Millar, the Legal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice, has been passed to me for attention.
You will by now have received my letter written to you on the same date which, I hope, may have provided answers to some of the questions which are still concerning you (and, I believe, Mrs Eileen Wright).
Arising out of your latest letter it may be helpful if I add a few further comments.
1. I do not understand the suggestion made in the opening paragraph of your letter to Mr Millar where you indicate that you have found it impossible "to get answers to questions affecting [the Patient's] estate".
Since my original engagement in this case I have personally answered every question which has been addressed to me (from any source) and I have provided detailed information for reference by the professional representatives (both solicitors and counsel) of all members of the Andrews family.[Yes, Mr. Hall, you have answered so many questions, but all your answers are mostly lies.]
2. As to the short-term letting of the Smithfield properties, I have already confirmed (in paragraph 8 on the third page of my letter to your of 3 April) that my negotiations have been concluded with the Company which has been in continuous occupation of the premises since before your father's death - Andrews & Company (Belfast) Limited. The terms of the letting have been settled following discussions between me and Messrs J Christopher Napier & Co representing that Company.
3. I believe that you are under the mistaken impression that the estate of the late Charles Edward Moncrieff Gilpin still retains some beneficial interest or shareholding in Andrews & Company (Belfast) Limited. That impression is incorrect. It is my understanding that Andrews & Company (Belfast) Limited is a wholly-owned subsiduary of Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited and that for a number of years Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited has been a wholly-owned subsiduary of the Ryland Vehicle Group. [Unfortunately, Mr. Hall, your understanding is totally flawed. As can be seen from this County Court case in Belfast dated September 28th 1988, Tughan & Co solicitor Herbert Wright pleaded guilty to a charge of "falsely representing Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited had a good and marketable title to premises known as 60/65 Smithfield Square, Belfast". Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited DID NOT own Freddie's Smithfield property, nor did Rylands. Rylands had been lured into purchasing stolen property. Of course you knew that, Mr. Hall, but you didn't let on, not even to the High Court Judge.] It follows, therefore, that neither Mr Gilpin (during the last years of his life) nor any member of his family (now) would have been financially involved in the implications of the recent settlement concluded with the approval of the Court. [Wrong again, Mr. Hall. Mr. Gilpin was the main shareholder in Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited as well as being a director of the Northern Bank. Mr. Gilpin and Tughan & Co, using Herbert Wright of course, relieved the Ryland Vehicle Group of £375,000 when they handed over Freddie's Smithfield property as they pretended that it belonged to Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited. That was "between the 1st day of August 1979 and the 31st day of January 1980", according to this County Court charge and nearly FOUR YEARS before your infamous 'Comprehensive Report' to High Court Judge MacDermott when you kept all this secret from the High Court Judge. Of course Rylands wanted their £375,000 back but Mr. Gilpin had been to the island of Jersey with his booty, awaaaaaaaaaay out of everybody's reach. The Fraud Squad stated that but you kept that under your hat too. So, I'm afraid I must disappoint you, Mr. Hall, and expose your little, or rather large, scam which you then had to find a way of covering up. What a mess you made of that too!
Here on the 6th March 1986, with the authority of the High Court, you are giving back to Tughan & Co (in practice giving back to Charles Gilpin) the £35,000 that Gilpin and Wright lodged in the Northern Ireland Industrial Bank in Bangor in their own names on October 14th 1977, money which they pretended was the payment for ALL of Freddie's Smithfield properties - freehold premises 62-65 Smithfield and leasehold premises at 66-69 Smithfield and 1-11 Francis Street. In fact and in practice you, Mr. Hall, assisted Gilpin (as Neville Johnston (Garages) Limited) and Tughan & Co to steal Freddie's Smithfield properties. These people then used solicitor Herbert Wright to 'sell on' PART of that property 60-65 or 62-65 Smithfield to the Ryland Vehicle Group for £375,000, a profit of £375,000 since you gave Tughan & Co back the original payment of £35,000 AND your new gang still had the leasehold premises at 66-69 Smithfield and 1-11 Francis Street to sell when the time was ripe. Now that was some deal!!!
Add to all this the fact that Charles Gilpin's son married Neville Johnston's widow and you will begin, Mr. Hall, to see why I say that your understanding of all this is totally flawed or should I say that what you write is totally flawed.]
4. At the bottom of the second page of your letter you have referred to property at 1-5 Francis Street which, you state, "belongs to [your] brother". Mrs Eileen Wright has also written to the Office of Care and Protection (Mr Chambers) in a separate letter dated 3 April in which she has also referred to this property which, she suggests, has been "put aside for a multi-car park". I am sorry that you and Mrs Wright should still be concerned with the development proposals relating to this particular property in which the Patient has only a limited beneficial interest. [Maybe you should have a look at what you, Mr. Hall, stated in these six paragraphs from your 'Comprehensive Report' to the High Court. Have a look at this as well.] I wrote to Mr Michael J Fearon, who represents your sister Mrs Wright, on 12 Decemher last setting out a clear explanation of the title to the property at 1-5 Francis Street. I indicated in that letter that those premises were held under a Sub-Lease dated 27 March 1939 on foot of which the Patient is entitled (only) to the benefit of a sub-rent of £50 per annum. He is not entitled to the value of the site itself - which, as you know, was formerly the location of a public house owned by a man named John J Conlon.
5. At the top of the third page of your letter you have referred to the Patient's interests in property at Little King Street and at Winetavern Street. Mrs Wright has also referred to these properties in her letter addressed to Mr Chambers. You will recall that in my first report to the Judge dated 30 January 1984 I dealt at length with the sales of both properties and set out for consideration by the Court my own conclusions supported by the advice which I had obtained from senior counsel. The relevant parts of that report relating to the Little King Street properties may be found in paragraphs 6-8 on page 4; those relating to the sale of the Winetavern Street properties may be found in paragraphs 11-12 on pages 5-6. [You should be ashamed of yourself, Mr. Hall. Five little paragraphs on the shocking events leading up to and during the seizure and sale of two lots of properties belonging to my mentally-handicapped brother Freddie whose father gave Freddie those properties to support the upkeep and maintenance of "Tara House" which was also seized and sold making the sale of his properties at Little King Street and Winetavern Street a fraudulent event.]