The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-08-16
De La WARR'S DISGRACE
Hooley Describes the Effort
to Bribe Him to Commit
Perjury.
ny Gable to The Associated Press.1 ]

fSy fOdDle 10 i ne <ASSCSlGteu fTeSsI
LONDON, Aug. 16, lSsS.-In the Queens
Bench Division of the High Court of JUS
tice today Justice Wright resumed the
hearing of the motion to commit Earl
De-La-Warr, Messrs. Broadley, Bradshaw
and Rucker for contempt of court in at
tempting to induce Mr. Ernest Terah
Hooley, the bankrupt company promoter.
to falsify his evidence in the Bankruptcy
Court.
Mr.. Hooley, who was sworn, explained
the discrepancy between his own state-
ment that he had paid Earl Della War;
e50.Ge0 and the Earl's statement that he
had only received KS, ,0Oo, by saying that
he paid the latter G25.000 directly and sub
sequently paid him an equal amount
through Mr. Broadley, Mr.. Hooley's agent.
for division between Earl De-La- War; and
Lord Albemarle
Mr.. Hooley SAID he had since discovered
that Broadley kept the e25,OO0
Regarding Earl De-La-Warr's alleged
offer of a1,OOO if he (Hooley) would con-
tradict his former evidence, the bankrupt
said that Mr.. Broadley, at the Brunswick
Hotel, offered him the money in the EarTs
presence; and the correction of this state
ment which Earl De-La-Warr 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, JUS
ttee Wright dismissed the summons
against Mir. Bradshaw
The latter then went on the stand and
asserted that Earl De-La-Warr, in the
course of a conversation with Bradshaw.
as TO Mr. Hooley's position, offered to pay
Hooley's hotel bill for a month, and said he
was prepared also to help Mrs. Hooley to
the extent of fl.000 (5,000l. Earl De-Lar-
War;, Mr. Bradshaw declared. asked him
not to let Mr. Hooley know of the offer.
as the matter might be construed as an
attempt at bribery. 1t was understood,
at the same interview, that Mr.. Hooley
would be asked to correct his original ev1-
dence- While on the stand, Mr. Bradshaw
tainted
Earl De-La-Warr was next sworn. and
he repeated in substance the testimony
he had already given before the Registrar
in Bankruptcy, to the effect that he re-
ceiVer nothing for becoming director in
the Dunlop Company or for introducing
others. TO Mr. Hooley. He admitted that
he had suggested TO Mr.. Bradshaw that
the latter could, perhaps, induce Mr.. Hoo
ley to correct certain n1isstatements.
During ross-examination, in refer
ence to his telegram to Mr.. Hooley. ask
ing him to make it clear that he lthe
EarD did not have f50, 900 on account OF
the 1otation of the Dunlop Company the
Earl said his only object was to get Mr..
Hooley to correct wrong statements, adj
ding:-.s"I never saw the paper alleged to
have been written at the Brunswick Ho-
tell
Earl De-La-W War; acknowledged receive
ing $4,000 $4,000 as gift. He said that
he subsequently received 41,300 (S6,509),
and that at a later date borrowed 4lo,-
900 $50 0G9l but this money was not paid
him for joining the directorate.
Later, the Earl said, he was released
from this debt by Mr. Hooley. He adj
mitted that he knew that Lord Albemarle
eS 000 f$40, ,090). When he questioned Hoo
ley with relation to his mis-statements,
he deposed that the latter replied:-"That
is all right; | did not know what I was
saying
Ma Broadley testified that there was
not word of truth in the statement that
ne had intercepted money. He character
lied Mr.. Hooley's evidence as "a farrago
of falsehoods."
Justice Wright will deliver his decision
t0nnarrow