ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Evening Star, Issue 4173, 12 July 1876, Page 2

ALLEGED CRIMINAL LIBEL.

The libel action instituted by Bishop Moran against Mr George Bell, of the Evening Star, was heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr J. Bathgate, R.M., and Air T. A. Mansford, R.M., and in the presence of a full bar and crowded court. Defendant was proceeded against “ for wilfully causing to be printed and published in the Evening Star newspaper a false, scandalous, and malicious libel of and concerning the Roman Catholic clergymen of Dunedin aforesaid, being officebearers, or organisations of the Roman Catholic Church, under the control and supervision of the Most Reverend Patrick Moran, Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, aforesaid in the words following :— ‘ The ‘ Tuapeka Times’ says it is reported that a rev. father of the Roman Catholic Church, Dunedin, has thrown off the trammels of the Church, and followed the example of Pere Hyacinthe, of Paiisian celebrity, by taking unto himself a wife., The fair one is reported to possess considerable personal charms, and at one time is said to have been numbered with the Dunedin Sisters of Mercy’ to the scandal of the religious body known as the Roman Catholic Church, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity, being an indictable offence.”

On the charge being read over, Mr H. Howorth said : I appear for defendant, may it please your Worship, and plead not guilty. Mr Macassey ; I appear for the informant, with my friend Mr M‘Keay. Mr lioworth, before the case was proceeded with, wished to draw their Worships’ * attention to an article appearing in the ‘New Zealand Tablet’ referring to this action, and which was prejudicial to the defendant’s case.

Mr Macassey submitted that his learned friend was not in order. The Court was there for the special purpose of holding an inquiry. Mr Howorth pointed out that iu the Supreme Court there would not be the slightest difficulty in bringing the proprietor of the ‘ Tablet ’ forth. There was no machinery iu this Court to enable that process to be followed up, and he (the learned counsel) submitted that it was perfectly competent for him, aud a matter of justice to his client to bring the matter undet their Worships’ notice, and that before the case was proceeded with.

Mr Bathgate: Assuming for the sake of argument that you have ground of. complaint, the question arises ; can I give any remedy? I apprehend not. I am strictly speaking, sitting as a Court of Justices of the Peace to inquire whether a prknd facie case has been made out.' That would not enable me to call up the publisher of the ‘ Tablet ’ for contempt. Mr Macassey, in opening the’ease for the prosecution, said that it was the the first time that Bishop Moran felt bound to arraign the proprietor of any newspaper in a Court of Justice for what he had written. If the alleged libel was a purely personal one, and affected the Bishop himself only, he could have afforded to treat it with the contempt which it deserved. But it would be seen that the imputation was one which affected the clergy, of which he was the head, in this diocese, and it also affected the character of a number of ladies in the Domiuician Convent here. It was not on personal grounds that Bishop Moran had proceeded against Mr Bell for the libellous statement which had appeared in the Evening Star newspaper. Under ordinary circumstances anyone feeling aggrieved in this manner should seek redress by an action in a civil Court of Justice. But it was impossible ftn* Bishop Moran to intitule proceedings having for their object the recovery of damages, as the imputation contained in the paragraph complained of was most general, and it would be impossible for any person to point to that paragraph and say, “I am the person alluded to there.” The paragraph was not an original one, inasmuch as it previously appeared iu the ‘ Tuapeka Times,’ from which it was copied into the Star. It would possibly be urged on behalf of the defendant that he was not the originator of the scandal. That might be a mitigation of the offence in some cases; but it was not so in the present one, as the ‘ Tuapeka Times, circulating in a small district, might be allowed to publish a para graph of this kind without attention being especially drawn to it. But when the libel was transferred from an insignificant local paper to one possessing the circulation of the Star, the matter became very different. The locals and paragraphs appearing in the Dunedin papers were communicated to different parts of the Colony and the world. It was impossible, therefore, to have tie scandal repjoduced in the *T \TS. without it very much enhancing its original importance. It was difficult to understand how a newspaper claiming the

respectable position of the Star should deal with a scandal of. the kind complained tf in tho paragraph. If it were true, it could do no good except to give offence to a large number of persons interested in the welfare of their clergy, but when it was false, the injury was ten times greater. He would place before his W< rship the evidence of a number of the adherents of the Catholic Church who had read the local, and wb o would put their construction upon it. The learned counsel then read the paragraph in question, and said that the case of Pere Hyacinthe was well known. He had married a wife and dissolved his union with the Church. To make an imputation of this kind against a Catholic clergyman was to say that he had violated the vows of his Church, and rendered himself liable to suspension and excommunication. The same result would follow in regard to a Sister of Mercy who became involved in marriage. He then pointed out that there was no such order of nuns here as the Sisters of Mercy, and that the imputation therefore must be considered as implying that one of the ladies of the Dominican Convent had" also violated her vows and engaged in marriage. Bishop Moran, as head of the Catholic Church here, would be put in the box, and prove that the paragraph was absolutely untrue. A question might be raised as to whether Bishop Moran, who was not directly pointed at, had any right to interpose. But it was held in the case of the General Government re Mr G. B. Barton, when editor of the ‘ Daily Times, ’ that any stranger could lay the information, and in that instance it was done by Mr Spencer Brent, who was a clerk in the office of the Crown Prosecutor. Bishop Moran had come forward for the purpose of protecting his clergy, and also the ladies of the Dominican Convent. It might be further said that as the imputation did not refer to any one particular clergyman, it could not be libellous. But to make a general imputation upon a body of men was without doubt libellous. There was a celebrated case to that effect in which Lord Brougham appeared. He meant the case of Rex v. Williams, 5, B. and Al., 595, which was that of a libel against the cleVgy of Durham, in which they were charged with preventing the bells from being tolled on the decease of one of the Queens of England. In conclusion, he submitted that from the evidence he would adduce there could be no question, but the case was one for further inquiry. He then proceeded to call the following witnesses:—

James Cahil was law clerk to Mr M‘Keay, examined by Mr Macassey, You know Mr George Bell ?—I know him, but not personally. I should know Mr Bell iu the street.

Did you purchase this paper (showing the Evening Star) ?—I made an entry on the 6th, having bought it at the office iu Bond street.

I observe you have a little note. You paid one penny for it?— Yea, I also bought other two.

I wish you to turn to the local to which I have been drawing attention? I read it previous to buying the paper. I believe you are a member of the Roman Catholic Church ?—I am.

[The local was read.]

As a member of the Eoman Catholic Church how do you understand that ?—To my mind, if true—of course I assume it true —I am taught by the Church any Eoman Catholic clergyman guilty of such an act as stated, I would not recognise him nor would any of my friends.

I think you had better start anew aud state what you mean ?—This paragraph is to my mind—if true, as stated in the article - I would, not associate with a clergyman that would be guilty of taking to himself a wife. I myself nor friends of mine would associate with him.

Supposing you were a stranger here and read that paragraph for the first time, what would you infer as a matter of fact ?—I would infer that a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church had thrown off his vows and taken a lady from the Convent as his wife.

Can you say how many Roman Catholic clergymen there are in Dunedin?—Thera are Father Crowley, the Bishop, and other two clergymen whose names I do not know. Cross-examined by Mr Howorth ; You say you are taught by the Church to do certain things?—l never said anything of the kind.

You partly made use of the expression you were taught by the Church ? —I will tell you what I mean—l am taught by the faith which is of the Church.

Then you are taught by your faith that if a Roman Catholic Father throws off the trammels of the Church and takes a |wife, you would not associate with him ?—I would not. I would shun him as I would a con-vict-more so.

Do you know what is meant by the trammels of the Church ?—I meant to be understood he throws off three vows—charity, chastity, and poverty. He would be no longer a priest. He could not be a priest if he threw off any of the three vows?—No, he could not he a priest. What are the three vows ?—Chastity, poverty, and obedience. Do yon consider there is any unchastity in the marriage of a member of the Roman Catholic Church, not being a priest ?—No, not except he is a clergyman. I will only ask this further question : Supposing a priest he absolved from his vows, and afterwards marry, would you consider that amounted to unchastity ?—He can never be absolved from his vows.

He would be an ordinary man ?—He would no longer he a priest; he would not be a practical Catholic.

I put the question to you generally : Supposing a priest be released from those vows, would you consider him guilty of unchastity ? —I cannot answer that question. He can get married if he likes, but he can never be absolved. It is known by all Roman Catholics.

And if reduced to a person of the same level as yourself?—He could not be reduced.

You would recognise any other than a Homan Catholic ?—I respect all persons of all religions alike, but I should not respect a priest who would do that, as of another religion.

And you consider that a priest in throwing off the trammels of the Church is a perjurer and everything that’s bad?—Of course I do; just the same as I should if I were to break my oath.

Colin M‘Kenzic Gordon, Deputy-Registrar of the Supreme Court, deposed that defendant had filed an affidavit in November last testifying that he was proprietor of the Evening Star.

John Griffin, examined by Mr Macassey What-are you, Mr Griffin?—A merchant, carrying on business in Dunedin. And a Justice of the Peace, I believe ?■— Yes, I am a Justice of the Peace. i believe you ore a member of the Roman Catholic Church?— Yes, since I was born. Did you read the paragraph in tbe local column of the Evening Star of the 3rd July ? —I did. What would you infer as a matter of fact from it ?—As a Roman Catholic and a colonist of fifteen years’ standing I never read a paragraph iu my life that gave me so much pain—never'in the whole course of my Colonial career.

If that was the effect on your mind, what was there to occasion that feeling ‘(—Well, of

course, a clergyman which I don’t know—some clergyman nmst have been referred to. Before you come to that, bow do you read it ?—I understood it as a scandalous libel.

I do not mean that—what did you suppose occurred ? —I supposed that the priest should have thrown off his cloth—a priest ceases to be a priest, I understood that a priest belonging to Dunedin should have lirst ceased to be a priest and have taken unto himself a wife.

You say should have first?—l should have stated had actually ceased. Where would you infer that the wife had been formerly?—lt would appear that a Sister of Mercy had also given up her vows ; but I am not aware that there is such a society. Mr Howorth : Then it cannot be a libel. Is there a convent here ?—Yes.

What is the name? —The Order of St. Dominic. And they are known as Dominican Nuns,

Are there any nuns ?—Yes. Do you know how many ? —I think eight, l am not certain as to the number.

Supposing you were aware of the fact that there is no such order as Sisters of Mercy, who would you infer the paragraph to refer to?

Mr Howorth ; I submit that question is not pertinent. There is no such Order—the language is perfectly clear and plain, and it requires nothing to render it more intelligible.

Mr Macassey : As I understand it, your Worship, the imputation is that a priest has married some one who has engaged, by her vows, to avoid marriage. Accordingly, if there is no such Order the intention of the author of the libel is to impute it to some one of those persons. It is in precise terms. The Bench: What is your question exactly ? ,

Mr Macassey : Suppose that Mr Griffin knew there was no such an Order or e ociety of Mercy, to whom should he infer the assertion referred ?

Mr Howorth: I object to thht question, for it seems to incorporate Mr Griffin's interpretation with the matter of the paragraph; therefore it may impute to the writer something that was never intended. The Bench : A magistrate is not tied down by strict rules of evidence in a preliminary investigation. I think at this stage of the proceedings I may allow it to be put. The Witness: I should suppose, in the absence of an Order of Mercy, it is meant nuns of the order known as St. Dominic. You observe the -reference to Pere Hyacinthe in the local? Yes, I have read a good deal about him. Can you say as a fact has that occasioned scandal in the Church ? I should think so.

What would be your idea of a Eoman Catholic clergymau who threw off his vows and married a wife?— Well, I should simply detest him. “

Cross-examined by Mr Howorth. You say you have read a good deal about Father Hyacinthe ? —Yes. Will you be good enough to tell us what happened to him ?—1 do not know.

What was he?—l cannot tell. Ho was reputed to be a priest of the Eoman Catholic Church. That is, I simply read about him, I do not know whether it is a fact or not.

I only ask you about some of the facts you read about him—you say he was a Roman Catholic priest. Cau you say whether he was absolved from his vows or not ?—I do not know I only tell you what 1 know. I cannot tell you more. Did Father Hyacinthe marry a wife?— He is reported to have married a wife. Did you read that he was reported to have been absolved from his vows prior to marriage ? —I did not. Do you mean he was absolved from his vows as a priest ?—I answer that question by saying No, for he could uot. Have you ever read about Martin Luther ? —I have heard the name mentioned, but I only heard he was a very naughty man. Do you know when celibacy was first practised among priests ?—I am not prepared to answer that question. Do you know that priests used to marry in old times ?—I do not know ; I did not go so far back as Martin Luther.

I ask you whether, in the early ages of the Church, priests were permitted to marry ?—I do not know.

Did yon ever read of a Pope marrying ? Never.

Then you cannot say whether it was a custom in early ages of the Church for priests to marry?—l cannot say if you allude to priests of the Church to which I belong, but if other sort of priests, such as Jews and others, they are said to have taken wives. Of my own Church lam not aware that priests were ever permitted to marry. Do you know whether the Apostles were married ?—I do not know.

Mr Howorth : I dare say we shall obtain better information from his Lordship when he goes into the box.

You say you never read a paragraph in your Colonial career that gave you so much pain?— Never, for this reason :it originated in the Province of. Otago, and therefore may he looked upon as a domestic scandal, and it comes home to every Catholic here and in New Zealand,

Supposing that a large number of persons think verj lightly of the matter, what do you say to that ?—I answer for myself only and all Roman Catholics.

What do you understand to be the meaning of trammels of the Church?—ldo not believe such a thing is known as for every one that becomes a priest has no trammels.

Then if he is not trammeled he is free to go ?—Quite free to go. That is any person may secede from the Roman Catholic Church or is free to secede from it ’—Precisely so. Ido not believe in any trammels in this Church or in any other Church in the wide world. lam speaking of myself only. Then is it possible for a priest to secede ? After he has ceased to be a priest he can secede, as he has ceased to be a priest before he leaves it.

That particular act to which you refer ; be good enough to tell us what it is ’—Tell me what it is.

(For continuation see. page 4.)

Suspicious tailor to a suspected customer* make you a coat, sir? Oh, yes, sir, wbh the greatest pleasure. There, just stand in that position, please, and look light upon that sign while I take your measure.” The sign reads- ‘ Terms Cash.

If a priest wants to leave the Roman Catholic Church he ceases to he a pneat before he leaves it—that is, he cannot be a priest and a Protestant at the same time ’—l say a priest must cease to be a priest before he becomes a believer in any other religion. Ido not go so far as that. Can he not get rid of ms priest’s Orders? —He must cease to be a priest before he can do so. Mr Howorth : It is a mystery to me, I tnnst confess; 1 cannot understand it. So you do not understand what the trammels of the Church are ? —No, not at all. There is no such word known, as far as I know. _ I will put it in another way. I will say vows. Can a priest be released from his vows ? —I cannot answer that question. F. W, Petrie examined by Mr MacasseyYou • are an architect and engineer in Dunedin ?—I am. I believe you belong to the Roman Catholic Church?— Yes. You were brought up to it ?—-Yes. Have you seen the local in the Eveeixq Stab, of the 3rd July ? —I did not read it, but I hoard it readout and discussed. I want to draw your attention to it now. I believe you were in England when the occurrence took place in connection with Father Hyacinthe ? —I was. Can you say what effect that produced in the Roman Catholic Church ?—lt was a vory great scandal. What impression would the paragraph have on your mind on reading it the first time ? —The impression, had no individual’s name been mentioned, would bo that the individual had committed, in an aggravated sense, a perjury, and perjury of the worst nature: not looking at it by the light in which you would look at per,ary in the external world, but looking at it in a spiritual light, of the gravest description that could be committed by a Catholic clergyman. Supposing one of the Catholic clergy of Dunedin to have married, in what way would he he received by the Roman Catholic body ? •—I think he would not be received at all. In wbat way would he be regarded ?—*He Would he shunned by all his co-religioniata. Can you say as a Catholic whether It would be considered highly wrong ?—Great importance is attached to keeping vows of celibacy. In fact, all his vows are to be kept. c I mean in regard to priests’ vows?—Of . course.

With regard to the suggestion that a priest had married a Sister of Mercy—you nave no such Order here—but having that knowledge, what would you infer ?—I should infer the person who had written the local had mistaken the name of St. Dominic. Mr Howorth reminded the Court he had Already objected to the question. Then substitute, as he says, the Order of St. Dominic for the Order of Sisters of Mercy, in what way would you read it ?—I ahould attribute it to the Order of St. Dominic. Mr Howorth submitted that this was going beyond the former question. The Magistrate allowed the question, and observed it is not in a name—it is a question of a lady belonging to the Church being married. I think it has quite been proved there is no order of Sisters of Mercy but of St. Dominic, Assuming there is no order of Sisters of Mercy but of St. Dominic, in what way would you understand it ?—As a direct imputation that one of the body had broken her vows by marrying. Cross-examined by Mr Howorth— You say that the marriage of Father Hyacihthe at Home caused great sensation. I presume you mean in the Roman Catholic Church’ ?—Exactly so. The Protestant community did not trouble themselves about it ?—No, I do not think eo. The Protestants did not lock upon it in the same light. _ Would persons outside the Roman Catholic Church receive Father Hyacinthe into society?'—lt depends upen what grade of society. I think in v/hat’s understood as society they wouid not receive him. I mean society of his own standing. Wo cannot all visij; in Brooke’?. ..Amongst persons of similar position in lifo would he le received or not ?—I may say the greater part of what may be called respectable society would not receive him, but the principal scandal would be confined to our own Church, Will you be good enough to define what you mean by spiritual perjury?—l am not aware I used the -expression. Looking at it in a spiritual sense in reference to the next world. Then you say the spiritual light has reference to the next world ?—Looking at in the light of reference to the next world—not merely as an offence against society. In other words, it stands much higher than legal perjury—is that your position ? I dare say it does. Legal perjury has a great many different dyes. You say the vow of celibacy is of great importance—can you give us an account of that vow—can you repeat it?—No I cannot repeat the form of the vow of celibacy. Can you give us the substance of it ?—To abstain from matrimony. Are you speaking from recollection or from thorough knowledge of the subject ?—What do you mean by recollection ? You say you cannot repeat the form ?—I am not aware I ever saw the form. Then you are really speaking of a subject ©f which you know very little ?—Yes. John Joseph Connor, examined by Mr Macassey— J What are you ?—A printer. I believe you reside in Dunedin ?—Yes. And belong to the Roman Catholic Church ?—Yes. Have you read the local in the Evening Stab of the 3rd July ?—Yes, I have readmit. Asa Catholic, what impression has it produced on your mind ?—lt produced a feeling that a very great wrong had been done to our persuasion. You mean in #he publication of such matter?— Yes, in the publication. Asking you more specifically in regard to the local itself?—As a matter of fact, of course, I understood it to mean that one of the three gentlemen now residing here—one of our clergymen residing in Dunedin had broken the vows and had married one of their nuns residing in Dunedin. As a matter of fact, that was the impression made on my mind. J As a Catholic, how would you regard a S’ sst or nun who would act in that way ? Catholics would regard such a person as having fallen to the very lowest depths to trmch a mortal a man could possibly fall. And you say that all Catholics would regard such a person in the same light ’—l am positive of it, i

As a matter of fact has the local created any great feeling ’—Yes, very great feeling —very great wrong, indeed. * Cross-examined by Mr Ho worth— You would not pretend to say that the portien of the community outside the Catholic circle was much concerned about it ?—I am prepared to say they are much concerned about it. I am not speaking of your own circle but the public generally ?—-Those with v/mur I have come iu contact. _ Yousay you are a printer for the ‘N. Z, ' Tablet?—lam.

Who is the proprietor of it’ Mr Macaasey objected. Mr Howorth: Your Worships have granted to my learned friend indulgence in admitting some evidence, and I submit it is necessary for me in conducting this case for the defence to ascertain this information. I submit I have a right to put the question. The Bench : You can ascertain it from the Registrar. Mr Howorth: It is just one of those things done in so slipshod a manner that the registration does not inform us of. The Bench ; They may be subject to penalties. Mr Howorth : Perhaps so, if any body chooses to move in the matter. But I have a right to have this evidence for the defence. You say you are printer to the ‘ Tablet ? ’ —I am overseer in the office of the ‘New Zealand Tablet.’ I am employed in the office in which it is printed as overseer. Did you see this article before it was printed ? Mr Maoassey : I should submit 1 must put him upon his guard. Mr Howorth : I simply put It forward —it Is really an article in contempt, of Court, and as I have leave, unless the witness himself feels it contains a libel he should answer the question. Mr Mamssoy : I ask your Worships to take one thing at a time if he consider.-, there is any libel. At present, this publication is one for which Mr Bell is responsible. The Magistrate : I am clearly of opinion that it is inadmissablc at this stage. At present I do not see how it bears upon the question. Mr Howorth : My learned friend has put into all his witnesses’ hands a copy of the Rtau containing that matter. I wish to put it into his hands, as he will find in it the same matter. The Magistrate : You are falling into this error’—you assume I am trying the case, but this is only a prhnd facia case for committal. Mr Howorth: Therefore all the greater reason why you should allow as much liberty ©f evidence as possible. The witness is in the box, and I submit I have a right to put the paper into his hand and read a paragraph from it. Docs your Worship rule that I am not at liberty to ask this witness who the proprietors of the ‘ Tablet ’ are, nor read any portion of the article ? The Magistrate : Not just now, Mr Howorth; I wish to ask a further question. Is the ‘Now Zealand Tablet’ newspaper written in the interests of the Roman Catholics of this community ? The question was disallowed, I also ask your Worships to allow me to

read to the witness an extract from the * N. Z. Tablet’ of the 7th July ? The question was disallowed. Michael Fleming deposed ; I am a produce dealer in Dunedin, and a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I read the paragraph in the Evening Star of July 3rd. I considered it a great wrong and insult to the Catholics of New Zealand, I should regard a priest who got married as a rotten branch of the Church, The paragraph in question has caused great feeling among the Roman Catholics, Dr Moran deposed : I hold the office of Roman Catholic Bishop of Dunedin, and arrived in Dunedin on the 18th February, 1871; but was appointed in 1869. I was previously Bishop in Grahamstown, Cape of Good Hope. During the whole of my hie, 1 have been connected with the Catholic Church, and have been "a Bishop for twenty years. 1 read the local in the Star of July the 3rd, I •observe a reference in it to Pere Hyacinthc. I understand that this paragraph charges one of the Catholic clergymen of Dunedin ■with having broken his vow of celibacy, and thrown off his obligation of obedience to the Church and Bishop, and married a wife. Supposing that a priest had done what is stated, or insinuated here as being true, he would have incurred the penalty of suspension, excommunication, and deposition also. In tno event of a nun marrying a onest, she would be subjected to excommunication, and, according to the law of the Church, to perpetual imprisonment and penance. I tinderstand cm' allusion to Peru Hyacinthe to mean that lie broke his vow of chastity, disobeyed the Church, and married a wife. Uhen that occurrence took place it gave the most grievous scandal, and the most intense pain to all Catholics,. Judging from what I know to have occurred already in this Province, and from u.y knowledge of the effect produced by similar reports elsewhere Mr Ho worth : -You are going beyond your knowledge. The witness : You have no right to make such an observation. It is open to you disprove what lam saying. lamon my oath. In my opinion the effect of that paragraph will bo . most injurious to the character of the priests here. Ido not think that the evil can over be rectified fully. 1 have three clergymen in Dunedin, and lhavebeenresideuthcre ever since my arrival in this Colony, with tho exception of a short absence at Wellington. 1 am personally acquainted with ad tbo priests who have ever been rosweat in Dunedin since I came bore. They have always resided hi my bouse! iho three clergymen who resided with me at the time of tho publication of tho local in the f-TAit, had been staying with me since the beginning of the year. There is not the slightest fouudatiofi for saying that one of them has cast off the trammels of the Church, and taken a wife. There is no such Order here as the Sisters of Mercy but there is one of the Order of Saint Dominic. There is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that a nun has been married to a priest, or anyone else. Cross-examined by Mr Howortb. , Did you communicate with Mr Bell before laying this information ?—I did not. Then of course 1 need not ask you whether you made him acquainted with the fact that the statement was untrue ?-—lt was his business to know it was untrue. If you had done so have you any doubt whatever be would have published a refutaa have ver y serious doubts, i At all events, you did not afford him the opportunity ?—I have already told you so. , 11,l l , observe the paragraph commenees do " ua F e^a imes ’ gives the report ?—I Have you prosecuted the ‘Tuapeka iunes . —I gave directions to do so at tho same time and in the same hour that I gave instructions for this prosecution. Is there a criminal prosecution now opened against the ‘ Tuapeka Times ?’—l have riven instructions to prosecute. ° Have you sworn an information against the Tuapeka Times ? —Not yet. Have you made any inquiries whatever of tne circumstances under which the Evening b’J as published the paragraph ? None. MTTufnC onl l tak ® P roce( *iings against Mr Bell because he is the proprietor of the paper?—! do not understand tho question And with' t iferrt”- •

i j reierance as to whether he had anything to do with the insertion of the paragraph ?—Because ho is the proprietor of the paper. And without knowing if he was personally concerned in the publication ?—I have nothing to do with it. That has nothing to do with the case. b And you do not know whether Mr Bell was pcisonally concerned m tho publication’ —4 ao not. '•* \*** ««« tlic ia ot!** papers r yea. ' H yen eopinicucGrl a prosecution against! any other pa*>er ?—JS r ot yet, . J

Have you seen the paragraph, or any por* I tion of it, in the ‘ Tablet.—l have. P Is not the ‘ New Zealand Tablet ’ the I organ of the Roman Catholics in Dunedin 1 —lt is, _ , Have you seen the article in the 4 Tablet of the 7th July!—l have seen it. His Worship : I do not think that I cat* load the depositions with anything which took place before the publication of the j alleged libel. Mr Howorth : The Bishop has stated that the ‘ Tablet ’ defends the views of the Catholics of Dunedin. In the article of which I am speaking this very paragraph is re-published. His Worship ; Do you mean to say that it | is put in without any remark ? Mr Howorth : Other papers are copying the * Tablet ’ article. His Worship : That does not affect the alleged libel, published previously. The paragraph did not appear in the ‘Tablet’ the same as in the Stab. In reply to a further remark from Mr Howorth, The Witness said : You do not know what action I may take against the ‘ Tablet.’*— (Laughter.) His Worship said that If Mr Howorth would keep in mind what he had previously stated, it would save this discussion. Mr Howorth said that he wished when he should come to the defence, to put the article which appeared in the ‘ Tablet’ in as evidence. His Worship : As you have mentioned it now, I may as well say that I Anil not alloAV you to do so, Mr Howorth : I wish to show the way the Catholics treated the matter in their own organ. His Worship ; No more remarks must bo made on this point. Wo must keep some sort of order, Mr HoAvorth (to the witness) : What is a vow of celibacy ? The Witness : A vow to abstain from matrimony and all sins against chastity. M r Howorth : Marriage, then, is not unchastity ? The Witness : I am astonished that any one should ask such a question in a Christian Court. Ido not wish to be disrespectful to the Bench ; but I never heard such a monstrous question. I Mr Howorth : I do not see anything ob-, jectionable in the question. ' The Witness : Then I pity you. Mr HoAvorth : How long has the law of celibacy prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church ? The Witness ; That has nothing to do with the question. The question is, may priests who have taken the vow marry. If Ave go into the historical question we will never be done. Mr Howorth : I submit that it is a question that should he answered. Ido not see why Bishop Moran should suppose himself aboA r e other witnesses. I submit I am entitled to show that it has not always preA'ailed in the Roman Catholic Church, I ask his Lordship if he knows how long the vow of celibacy has prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church. The Witness ; I haA r e no difficulty in answering the question, but if you enter into it you will never be done. If your Worship says that I am to answer the question I will do so, but not otherwise, His Worship : I say no. The Witness : I Avill not answer you, then. Mr Howorth : Then my client will not have justice. His Worship : It is not usual to go into the defence in a preliminary examination. Counsel have no legal right to be present at a preliminary inquiry. Mr Howorth: I understand your Worship to say that it is an unnecessary question. The Bishop says that he is quite able to answer it. I asked how long since this rule or practice of celibacy has prevailed in the Church. His Worship ; It is not a fitting question going into historical matter. Here it is sworn that there is an existing vow. Afterwards, imagining yon may refer to It, the Court is supposed to have its own knowledge of history. You may then quote history. But at present it is taking up time unnecessarily. Mr lloworth : Then your Worship simply says that I am at liberty to state, in argument, what authorities I can on the matter, Avithout being allowed to ask the Avitnesses any questions ? His worship s You will be left in this difficulty always. Supposing, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church had certain institutions 100 years ago, or tAventy years ago. The question is, have they one now ? What the people did iu the last generation, or the one preceding that, cannot have any bearing upon this subject. There is an existing institution sworn to, namely, a voav and obligation of chastity. Have I any right to listen to anything done in bygone days ? Mr HoAvorth ; 1 submit that your Worship has.

His Worship ; If you bear in mind that I am not trying the case—■ Mr Howorth: If you are going to send the case to a higher Court I may as well git down.

His Worship : I am not saying that, but I must limit your enquiries. Mr Howorth to the witness : You do not consider for a moment.,that the paragraph applies to yourself ?—I do not know to whom it applies. It applies to one of the clergymen of Dunedin. But not to the Bishop ?—I am a clergyman also. Does your Lordship consider that the paragraph applies to yourself ’—l do not know.

Supposing something is said concerning some other section of the community to which you do not belong, would you be in any way concerned ?■—State something explicit. It might be a trivial case. Put a parallel case. i to treat the case with levity; hut supposing you wore at Salt Lake Oity, and that a paragraph appeared stating that a Mormon had thrown of the trammels ot Mormomsm, which allows polygamy, and was living with one wife, would that effect you, or would you he concerned about it? i our supposition is beside the question, aud without meaning, with all due respect. Mr Howorth: I submit it goes to the root of the question. The Roman Catholic party has no legal status in New Zealand. lha Worship : The witness is not a Morman, 14 u ¥ r i ! lam not a Roman Catholic, to do l ° UOt fC€ ' 1U thlS matter ** the y a PPear

The Magistrate: It is nbt what we feel feels th 6 matter coucerne< l ; it is what he You do not see any analogy between the cases I have mentioned?—! do not see what Mormomsm has to do with the Church or with a Roman Catholic having broken hia V( ?. W3 - la m asking protection while in Dun- , ' m \, /“o n °t wo wi.at'M oi Monism has to do with our case. IIoworth: iui consequence of your vv orship S ruling I am not permitted to put many questions I should otherwise have put to the witness, and I therefore submit to the' puluig ot tlio <_' -m fc. ' A fc tn fcnvaitf with the case on oMUi-nv.-nr,,-- r.t. JOo’cf ock. Thede-' v t'iao f Ut< i r - eti IULJ ‘■'W a recognisance ‘ or “W h>r his appearance... The Coiirfc adjourned, A