The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-08-17

GAPAaIn ms Deal1h8S with the
Company PromOter-His Friend,
Mr.. Bradshaw, Tainted.
LONDON, Aug. 16.-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 War;. Messrs. Broadley.
Bradshaw and Rucker. for contempt Of
court for attempting to intimidate Err
Fest Terah Hooley. the bankrupt COM
pany promoter, to falsify his evidence
in the bankruptcy case.
Mr.. Hooley was sworn explained the
discrepancy between his own state
ment that he had paid Earl de la
War; $4,000 and the earl's statement
that he had only received f25,000 by
saying that he paid the latter ELS, 900
directly, and subsequently paid him an
equal amount Through Mr.. Broadley,
Mr.. Hooley's agent, for division be-
tween Earl de Ia War; and Lord AL
bermarle. Mr.. Hooley said he had
since discovered that Mr.. Broadley had
kept the $4,000 Regarding Earl de la
Wars offer Of f1,000 If he (Hooley)
would contradict his former evidence,
the bankrupt said that Mr.. Broadley,
at the Brunswick hotel, offered him
the money in the earl's presence, and
the correction of certain statements
which Earl de la War; wished him to
make was written out there, Mr. Hoo
ley deposed, in the presence Of the
earl.
After severe cross-examination, in
which Hooley stuck to his guns JUS
tice Wright dismissed the summons
against Mr.. Bradshaw. The latter
then went on the stand and asserted
that Earl de Ia War;, 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.
Hocley to the extent Of $1,000. Earl de
la 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. It
was understood at the same interview
that Mr.. Hooley would be asked to cor
rect his original evidence. While on
the stand Mr.. Bradshaw tainted.
DE LA WAR; DENIES.
Earl de la War; was next sworn,
and he repeated in substance the tes-
timony he had already given before
the registrar in bankruptcy, to the eff
feet that he had received nothing for
becoming a director in the Dunlop
company or for introducing others to
Mr.. Hooley. He admitted that he had
suggested to Mr.. Bran that the lat
ter perhaps could induce Mr.. Hooley
to correct certain misstatements.
On cross examination respecting his
telegram to Mr.. Hooley, asking him
to make 1t clear that he (the earD did
not have 100000 on account of the
,foatation Of the Dunlop company, the
earl said that his only object was to
get MI. Hooley to correct wrong state
ments, adding:
Il never saw the paper alleged TO
have been written at the Brunswick
hotel"
Earl de Ia War; denied receiving
$4,000 as a Gift. He said that he
subsequently received 1880 and that
at later date borrowed 10000, but
this money was not paid him for join
ing the directors. Later. the earl said,
he was released from this debt by Mr..
Hooley. He admitted that he knew
that Lord Albermarle received $4,000
and Mr.. Broadley $4,000. When ques-
tiontng Hooley with regard to the lat
ter's misstatements. he said the latter
replied: -,
"That is all right. I did not know
what I was saying. and I shall take
the first opportunity to stratghten
matters OUT
Mr.. Broadley testified that there
was not word of truth in the state
ment that he had intercepted moneys.
He characterized Mr.. Hooley's evil
dence as "a farrago Of falsehoods"
Justice Wright will deliver his deci-
sion tomorrow.