THE ESCAPED NUN

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 242, 7 July 1921, Page 5

THE ESCAPED NUN

RELEASED FROM CONVENT VOWS CLAIM AGAINST BISHOP DWYER By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Rec. July 6, 8.10 p.m.; Sydney, July 6. Public interest continues unabated in the case in which Miss Partridge (formerly Sister lagouri) claims damages from Bishop Dwyer. Each morning, wet or dry, a big queue forms outside long before the Court opens, and again after the luncheon adjournment, on the offchance of getting a seat in the small, crowded court. At the afternoon session the legal talent was numerously represented, keenly watching the proceedings. So far little fresh evidence has been adduced, and there have been no sensational developments. Chief interest lies in the battle between the contending lawyers and with some witnesses, centring mainly round the question of plaintiff’s mentality. The newspapers are publishing full reports. It transpires that since plaintiff’s escape her request for release from convent vows has been granted. One of the contentions for the defence was that she previously was free to’secure release from her vows and to leave the convent without resorting to flight, had she availed herself of the proper methods provided.— Press Assn. APPLICATION FOR~NONSUIT REFUSED (Rec. July 6, 11.10 p.m.) Sydney, July 6. The plaintiff, who was recalled, was questioned regarding a reference in her e\*Tttehce to penances. She stated that no physical penances were ever imposed by the authorities, but nuns voluntarily scourged themselves every Friday. This closed the case for the plaintiff, and counsel for defendant then applied for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff had entirely failed to establish the essentials of her case. Plaintiff (must fail unless she produced evidence that the information under which she was arrested was wilfully false. In the course of exhaustive argument, lasting the wholo day, counsel for the defence stated that the only purpose the Bishop had in obtaining an order for her arrest was to have the question of plaintiff’s sanity established one way or the other. No other course was open to him, owing 1 to tho secrecy maintained as to her whereabouts. Counsel emphasised the point that it was quite immaterial to his case that plaintiff was in fact sane, ns it was quite irrelevant to the determination of the question whether or not the Bishop had a, reasonable cause to think otherwise. At the conclusion the Judge refused a nonsuit, stating that he preferred to take the opinion of the jury, and adding that if he were wrong it would bo possible for the Court to determine the matter without putting the parties to further expense.—Press Assn.