20 AUGUST 1898, Page 2

On Tuesday Mr. Justice Wright heard the evidence in support

of the alleged contempt of Court brought to his notice by the Official Receiver, who reported that Mr. Hooley had at his public examination stated that he had been approached by, or on behalf of, Lord De la Warr, with the object of inducing him to vary the evidence he had given in relation to certain money payments which he alleged had been made by him. On Wednesday Mr. Justice Wright gave judg- ment. The charges against Lord De la Warr were, he said, "subornation to give false evidence and bribery to alter evi- dence." He considered that Mr. Hooley ought not to be con- sidered, "as counsel for the respondents had suggested, as a mere liar, scattering accusations which he knew to be without foundation ; but he was not a witness on whose evidence it would be safe to act in a case of this gravity. Sometimes he appeared to be under illusions, and to treat them for the purpose of evidence as if they were real." On the whole, the Judge declared that "as to the alleged attempt to induce Hooley to give false evidence, he found Lord De la Warr was altogether to be acquitted," but he found that the offer of 21,000 "showed some kind of a desire to obtain a retracta- tion." In this case it would be sufficient punishment for Lord De la Warr's indiscretion if he ordered him to pay costs. Mr. Broadley admitted filling up a paper in which this sen- tence occurred Mr. Hooley was to say on August 1st, have had no communication whatever with Lord De la Warr." Mr. Justice Wright declared "that he had no doubt whatever that that was absolutely false. Mr. Broadley was aware that the retractation was to be given in consequence of a communi- cation between Lord De la Warr and Mr. Hooley. At the same time, although he doubted very much whether he ought not to deal with Mr. Broadley differently from Lord De la Warr, he had come to the conclusion he would treat him in the same way, and those gentlemen would jointly and severally pay the costs." Mr. Justice Wright is so able and so com- petent a Judge that we do not desire to criticise his judgment. Public opinion, however, certainly inclines to the view that in Mr. Broadley's case he has been very lenient.