The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-08-17
MIR. HOOLEY's CHARGES.
Earl De La Wars Agent Alleged to
Have Kent &125.OOO.

LONDON, Aug. 16.-In the Queens Bench
Division of the High Court of Justice to-
day Justice Wright resumed the hearing Of
the motion to commit Earl De la War;,
Messrs. Broadley, Bradshaw and Rucker
for contempt of court in attempting to in
duce Ernest Terah Hooley, the bankrupt
company promoter, to falsify his evidence
in the Bankruptcy Court. Mr.. Hooey, who
was sworn, explained the discrepancy be-
tween his statement that he had paid Earl
De la War; $4,000 and the earl's statement
that he had only received eos 600, by saying
that he paid the latter G25,000 directly and
subsequently paid him an equal amount
through Mr.. Bradshaw, Mr.. Hooleys agent.
for division between Earl De la War; and
Lord Albemarle. Mr.. Hooley said he had
since discovered that Bradshaw kept the
G25,0OO Regarding Earl De la Wars al
legged offer Of $1,000 if he, Hooley, would
contradict his former evidence, the bank
rupt said that Mr. Bradshaw, at the Bruins
wick Hotel, offered him the money in the
earls presence. and the correction of GER
tain statements which Earl De la War;
wished him to make was written out there.
Mr.. Hooley deposed, in the presence of the
earl.
After severe cross-examination in which
Mr.. Hooley stuck to his guns. Justice
Wright dismissed the summons against Mr..
Bradshaw. The latter then went on the
stand and asserted that Earl De la War;,
in the course of a conversation with Brad
shaw, as to Mr.. Hooley's position, offered
to Pay Hooley's hotel bill for a month and
said he was prepared also to help Mr..
Hooley to the extent of G1,0O0. Earl De la
War;. Mr.. Bradshaw declared, asked him
not to let Mr. Hooley know of the matter,
as 1t might be construed as an attempt to
bride. 1t was understood at the same time
that Mr.: Hooley. would be asked to correct
his original evidence. While on the stand
Mr. Bradshaw tainted.
Earl De War; was next sworn, and he
repeated in substance the testimony he had
ruptcy, to the effect that he had received
nothing for becoming director in the Dun
lop Company, or for introducing others to
Mr.. Hooley He admitted that he had Sug-
sested to Mr.. Bradshaw that the latter
could, perhaps, induce Mr.. Hooley to cor
rect certain misstatements.
During cross examination, with reference
to his telegram to Mr.. Hooley asking him
to make it clear that he 6he earD did not
have $4,000 on account of f1otation of the
Dunlop Company, the earl said his only OBJ
jet was to get Mr.. Hooley to correct wrong
statements adding: Il never saw the paper
alleged to have been written at the Bruins
Earl De War; acknowledged receiving
$4,000 gift. He said that he subse-
quently received 81, 800, and that at a later
date he borrowed 10000, but this money
was not paid him for joining the direc-
torate.
Later, the earl said. he was released from
this debt by Mr.. Hooley. He admitted that
he knew that Lord Albemarle received
So co. and Mr.. Bradshaw GS,O00. When he
questioned Hooley with relation to his mis-
statements, he deposed that the latter re-
pied: THAT is all right. did not know
what 1 was saying and 1 shall take the
first opportunity to straighten matters out"
Mr.. Bradshaw testified that there was not
a word of truth in the statement that he
had intercepted money. He characterized
Mr.. Hooley's evidence as "a farrago of
falsehoods.
Justice Wright will deliver his decision
tomorrow.