A letter stating that a former Murphy Group chief executive, Mr Liam Conroy, owed money to a business partner who was reduced to selling his family home and living on social welfare reflected the true picture of the man, Mr Joseph Murphy snr said in evidence.
Mr Murphy agreed with his lawyer, Mr Garrett Cooney, that Mr Conroy was the person who had been introduced by the tribunal for the purpose of publishing and making allegations against Mr Murphy and his family.
Mr Conroy, now deceased, had taken substantially more money out of the company, Conroy Manahan & Co, than his partner, Mr Jack Manahan, the letter stated.
Dated March 16th, 1993, it was from Mr Anthony Manahan, Mr Manahan's son, to Mr Conroy.
Mr Manahan said Mr Conroy owed £40,000 to the company and his father was owed £25,000. The bank wanted the debt paid off. Mr Manahan said accounts showed Mr Conroy had spent money on a Mercedes, the Shelbourne Hotel and credit cards.
He also said that Mr Conroy denied the company substantial income from projects, including the refurbishment of the Gaiety Theatre by the Murphy Group.
He said that between 1978 and 1984, Mr Conroy took substantially more that his father. He took £135,959 whereas his father took £42,433.14.
"My father has been unable to earn money since his illness in 1989 and has no pension. The money raised by selling the family home in 1985 has now run out and he and my mother are relying on social welfare and contributions from myself and my sisters," Mr Manahan said.
"He could have waited until the pick up in 1988-89 [at the time of his illness]. Then he may have sold the house for £150,000 to £175,000. This would have been a more substantial sum to invest and he could have enjoyed an income in his retirement."
Mr Cooney asked Mr Murphy if the letter reflected a picture of Mr Conroy which he ultimately came to know to be the true picture. Mr Murphy agreed it was.
Mr Manahan also said there were monthly payments from 1980 to 1983 amounting to £12,386.72 for Mr Conroy's Mercedes while his father got payments of £1,774.60 towards his car.
In addition to other payments, Mr Manahan said, he had attached a copy of an invoice to Lajos Holdings/Gaiety Theatre for £3,075 which was paid to Conroy Manahan but was cashed without his father's knowledge on January 16th, 1985, rather than being paid to the practice account.
Also attached was a copy of the statement of account to the Gaiety Theatre for £65,231 with the office address crossed out and Mr Conroy's home address typed in.
"The scale of fees for both the London office block and the Gaiety were substantial sums which you [Conroy], wearing your Murphy Ltd hat, had reduced to about one-fifth of the correct total, thus denying the architectural practice a substantial fee income at that time from that source," the letter stated.
He said Mr Conroy should pay the £40,000 to the bank. The bank could take £12,000 owed to it and his father would have £25,000.