A LIFE DRAMA.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 150, 28 June 1933, Page 10

A LIFE DRAMA.

T. E. ROFE—SOLICITOR. REINSTATED AFTER 38 YEARS. EQUITY COURT'S DECISION. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, Juno 17. At the corner of CastleresigTi Street and James Street, in Eedfern, there is an office on which, 40 years ago, a young man of 24, just entering on his career in the legal profession, put up his brass plate, '"T. E. Eofe, Solicitor." Two years later, in 1895, T. E. Eofe, convicted on a charge of conspiracy, was sentenced to live years' hard labour and his name was struck off the rolls. On Thursday last Thomas Eofe, after an interval of 38 years, sat in Court and listened to the Chief Judge in Equity pronounce the decision of the Full Court that he be restored unconditionally to his old professional standing. The intervening years that have J made up Jtofe's life since that terrible blow fell in IS9o might well supply material for novelist or dramatist in searih of an absorbing thubie replete with "human interest." Eofe had always borne a good reputation—he had been closely associated with church work since boyhood, and he seems lo have felt the reflection upon his personal character even more keenly than the ruin of his professional prospects. His sentence was suspended under the First Offenders Act, and ho then set about the task of obtaining redress for what he maintained was an unjust sentence, 110 applied for readinission in 1901, and again in 190tS, but his plea was rejected each time. With the object of keeping his case before the public he sued a newspaper for libel and carried the matter to the Privy Council; and the evidence that he produced convinced so able a lawyer as Sir John Simon that "the only parallel case in modern times is the Dreyfus case." Still the Law Institute maintained its obstinately negative attitude; and it is only now, after the lapse of nearly 40 years, that Eofe's protestations and importunities have prevailed and the Court of Equity has formally reinstated him. A False Affidavit. In 1594 Eofe was acting for a man named Butler in divorce proceedings. A decree nisi was granted, but was not made absolute becausc in the interval Butler was convicted of manufacturing evidence to inculpate liis wife. Sirs. Butler then took proceedings to set aside the decree nisi granted, and in connection with this matter Eofe, still acting for Butler, submitted to his client an affidavit in which Butler was made to state that lio did not know the agent whom he had employed to watch his wife, and had given him no instructions. As Sir John Ilarvey said in the Equity Court this week, "it is not easy to come to a conclusion as to the motive which led to Eofe taking instructions from Butler and drafting an affidavit containing untruths to use in answer to Mrs. Butler's application." Eofe's own explanation was that ho drafted this affidavit to test Butler's "bona fides" —believing by this time that the man had invented tin evidence against his wife; but this Sir John Ilarvey dismissed as "an alnfctst incredibie plea." Of course, the concoction of this false affidavit appeared to implicate Eofe, along with Butler, in a conspiW<Jy against the unfortunate woman, and the live years' sentence was the result. On the other hand, when Eofe's petitions for readinission were heard in 1901 and 1906 the judge who had convicted- Eofe admitted that the only valid charge against him was the framing of the false affidavit. But this seemed°to the Chief Justice so serious a matter that in 1900 he expressed tin opinion that under no circumstances should EoTe even be admitted again to the legal profession. The Equity Court had therefore serious obstacles to surmount before ruling in Eofe's favour; and Sir John Ilarvey did not spare him. "Sufficiently Punished." In delivering judgment this week, his Honor said that Eofe'ts fault had been "overweening conceit, a callous indiffeienee to what Mrs. Butler had gone through, a culpable neglect to take steps which any man should have taken in common humanity to correct the wrong; worse than that, lie had overstepped the bounds of what a solicitor could do for a client whom the Court had no doubt he believed to be criminally guilty." Yet in spite of all this the Court had come to the conclusion that Eofe lias been "sufficiently punished," and as the Law Institute admits that since 1595 Eofe has "rehabilitated himself" in public opinion, the Court granted his plea for restoration. A word as to this process of "rehabilitation." Eofe is a man of ability, and as the years went on he amassed property and became wealthy. lie is credited with having given away at least £00,000 for charitable and public purposes during the last 30 years. He gave £5000 to the North Shore Hospital to establish a research fund and induced the Government to contribute a similar sum; he has endowed a ward at the Crown Street Women's Hospital in perpetuity. He has donated large areas of land to the Kuring-gai and Hornsby municipalities for public reserves; he has equipped a recreation room in connection with the Deal', Dumb and Blind Institute; he has given scholarships to the Conscrvatorium of Music, and many prizes for essays on Australian history. In public life he is president of theCouncil of Churches, president of the British Empire Union, a member of the National Park Trust, and ho holds a dozen other posts of importance and distinction. All this represents a very successful attempt at "rehabilitation" in ' I the eyes of his fellow citizens, and no doubt this honourable record played its part in the drama that reached its 1 finale last Thursday, which curiously enough was Mr. Eofe's birthday. Not Satisfied Yet. But Mr. Eofe is not satisfied yet. He maintains that he can still clear up the matter of the affidavit which, it is now admitted, was the only ground for his 1 conviction; and he proposes to devote ' the rest of his life to that purpose. * Naturally he-is overjoyed with the issue ' of his long struggle, and he has been J inundated with congratulations from ( countless friends. One of the most J pathetic touches in the story concerns ' the little office in Eedfern, where he first "put up his plate." Years ago Eofe ' bought this building for £1500 and he ' has held it ever since, against the day s of his restoration. Now he will put up the brass plate again. 1 As a postscript I may add the opinion f expressed by many lawyers and judges > here that it' there had been a Court of 1 CriminaL Appeal in New South Wales, 1 Eofe would have been rehabilitated long I ago.