“To the man of law the interest that centres in this case will be the grounds on which the judges differed from each other. To the ordinary citizen it will rather lie in the fact that the verdict of the Court mulcts the client for the lapse of the lawyer. Mr. Justice Chomley refused to disturb the jury’s verdict on the ground that, though Mr. Coldham’s conduct had been wrong, it had not corruptly influenced the jury’s minds. Mr. A’Beckett held the same opinion. Mr. Coldham, he holds, had done an exceedingly foolish act in hobnobbing with jurymen in an hotel bar during the progress of the trial. He said ‘it was conduct which the Court would not sanction or countenance; and if the Court had called upon those engaged in this matter, it would express its disapprobation and make them pay.’ But as the conduct in question was not corrupt, he refused to inflict the hardship of a new trial on Messrs. Huddart, Parker & Co. That is one view of the case. Justices Williams and Holroyd take quite another. They hold that Mr. Coldham’s acts gave rise to reasonable suspicions in the minds of onlookers. They no more say that the barrister acted corruptly than do the other judges, but they are clear that his conduct was such that any reasonable man might have entertained from it a suspicion of corruption. Mr. Justice Williams says that it was apparent that he knew the juryman (McGregor) before. This was all the more reason why he should have kept him at arm’s length. It appeared that McGregor handed Mr. Coldham a piece of paper just as the Court had adjourned. That fact alone would be calculated to excite suspicion. The learned counsel thoughtlessly and indiscreetly took this piece of paper, and looked at it, when his proper course would have been to hand it back at once, and say to the juryman, “You must not communicate with me.” This piece of paper contained, in the shape of a drawing, the juryman’s views on the construction of a portion of the vessel. That was an improper act. Mr. Coldham ran out into the street, and called out that it was of no use to him. Getting as a response “That’s all right,” he shouted out that he intended to take it down to him. Learned counsel could not remember whether he said “at Menzies’ Hotel,” but what was present in his mind was that he would bring it to Menzies’. Therefore, he must have known the juryman was going there. He did meet the juryman there, and together with the defendants’ solicitor had a drink with him after handing the paper back. Such conduct on the part of both the counsel and the solicitor was highly indiscreet and highly imprudent, or, as Mr. Box admitted, “heedlessly indiscreet.”