CLERICAL SCANDAL IN TASMANIA.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2224, 23 June 1870, Page 2

CLERICAL SCANDAL IN TASMANIA.

At the Civil Sittings of the Supreme Court, Launceston, the great scandal case of Archdeacon Reibey v. Bloomfield caused a-, great amount of sensation. The Solicitor'* General (Mr Isaacs) appeared for the plain-, tiff, and the Attorney-General (Mr Douglas) for the defendant. There was great excitement in the court. The Bishop of Hobart Town was accommodated with a seat on the bench. His Lordship was examined at length respecting conversations he had had with plaintiff. Many objections were raised, by tbe plaintiff to the evidence in cross* examination. The Attorney-General made a fine speech on opening for the defence, recounting all the, details of the alleged assaults, which were of a very sensational character. He was cheered a* its close, but the applause was immediately suppressed. Mrs Margaret Bloomfield was examined at great length, and stated that on two occasions, once ;at Entally and once at hrarhusbaud's residence, Strathmore, improper overtures had been made to her by the archdeacon. The alleged indecent acts on the part of the plaintiff were committed at hfs residence, at Entally, in June, 1858, when he took witness into his drawing-room, and showel her the photograph Of a naked woman.’ She at once left the room. The next day, talking of his wife, he complained that existence was miserable with such a wife—she was no wife to him. He then directly importuned her, when witness said, *• It was wicked for him to say so.” lam a married woman, and he seemed to forget that I did not think a man wottld offer ahy insult to a married woman. ‘He said I ought not to say it was wrong of him, because it was not. When I tqld hirak IWW a married woman, he said that was the very 1 reamn { ought to-alldw him, He pulled me on to his lap during the conversation. Then he put his hand on my dress. I told him if . he said and did such things he. would make me a miserable woman. Then he said he would not do any thing to make me miserable. Three days afterwards, when alone in witness’s company, he asked her to go up.to his bedroom, and put his arm round her and ’ raised her dress as she was sitting on a chair. Shd pushed' ’him away. The circumstahces were narrated to her husband, ;who Wrote a letter to the Bishop of Tasmania, which led ?0 the present proceedings. The cross-examination of Mrs Blomfield occupied two hours anil a half, eliciting some further details of what took place at Strathmore. She said Mr Reiby put his arm round her waist, entreated her to consent, and behaved in a most indelicate manner. She pushed him off, and desired him to leave the room. She admitted having once kissed Mr Reiby. It was in June, at Entally. He was talking of her children, and said how happy she ought to be, and how sorry he was that he had none. He called her his dear child, and asked her to kiss him, which she did. She had known hhn to kiss her sjster once, but thought there was no harm in it. After a long examination as to Mr Reiby’s position when he asked her to consent, she said he leaned upon her, aud had one arm round her waist. She did not scream nor tell her sister, who came shortly after, as she wanted to tell her husband first. Told her husband that night/ Mr Blomfield, the defendant, examined, detailed his interview with Mr Reiby when he Wenf to deipaiuj fin explanation. Mr Reiby begged forgiveness, amt said he would resign the archdeaconry and leove the colony'. Mr, Blomfield was the last witness for tbe defence. The plaintiff then called rebutting evidence. Archdeacon Reiby, examined, said that when on a visit to Strathmore Mrs Blomfield sat upon his kqee, kissed him, and he kissed her, bat he solemnly denied that there was any indecent or criminal act. The plaintiff, Mr Reiby, -was crbSs-examined for nearly' three hours, and generally supported his examination in chief. He did ndt consider kissing Airs Blomfield an impropriety. Did not toll the bishop all the . circumstances, because h e did not wish to destroy or injure anyone's character. Denied ever possessing indecent photographs. Could not account for Mr Blomfield’s animu?. His Honor the presiding judge commented upon the unsatisfactory manner of the bishop’s evidence, as given by him on Wednesday; and he also said he could not understand Mr Reiby’s motive in concealing from the bishop the worst part of what he himself admitted to have passed. Miss Eliza Cox was the next witness, and she was submitted to a severe examination. She deposed that Mr Blomfield told her mother and herself that Mr Reiby had attempted to take liberties with Mrs Blomfield. In consequence, her mother wrote to Mr Reiby, stating that the intimacy between their families must cease. Witness, however, on the 9th November last, shook bands with Mr Reiby at Mrs Duncan’s levee, he offering his hand, and Mrs Reiby', with whom her intimacy had not ceased, asking her to do so. She explained that she did it on the impulse of the moment, and because she could not forget the affectionate regard she entertained for Mr Reiby r previously, though she then believed Bloiiyliehl’s statement. A letter was produced, dated 14fch November last, from Alias Cox to Mrs Reiby, in which she said her testimony would clear the archdeaaon’s character. The judge pressed the witness for an explanation of the sudden change in her opinion. Miss Cox said she modified her opinion after the quarrel between Mr BIom» field and herself. She balLved Mi' Blomdeld exaggerated, aud that what Mr Blomfield said the archdeacon had admitted to him namely, that he had been temjited in a moment of weakness to forgot himself, but that nothing improper took place, was the correct version. The judge did not see any use in

pressing the witness further, Mrs Kciby, the plaintiff’s wife, and Miss Mason were examined as to what took place during the defendant’s stay at Entally, but their evidence was not material. His Honor desired to examine the plaintiff respecting the date of Mrs Cox’s letter, but the plaintiff was not in court. The, judge then questioned Mrs Biomtield why she did not tell her husband of Reiby’s conduct whilst the plaintiff was still at.Strathmore. She replied because she feared violence. Mr W. R. Giblin, the Attorney-General, then made a powerful and eloquent speech for the defence, lasting an hour and a half. Mr Isaacs, the SolicitorGeneral, replied in a careful speech, lasting three hours and a half. As our readers are aware, the Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff has since resigned the Archdeaconry.