Sister Ligouri’s Case

Hokitika Guardian, 14 July 1921, Page 1

Sister Ligouri’s Case

PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL CONTINUES ADDRESS.

iUBTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. SYDNEY, July 13. in the Liguori case Counsel for the plaintiff continuing his address to the jury said that Bishop Dwyer had shown himself an arrogant, proud man, who would not brook opposition. His action in issuing the warrant showed lie had had his own way in the community and he meant to have ft Referring to the fact that Bishop Dwyer had not applied to a clergyman named Archdeacon Pike, of Wagga, who knew of Sister Ligouri’s whereabouts, Counsel raid this was not because the Bishop thought that the information would he refused, but because of sectarianism, which had blinded his reason and judgment. Tn obtaining the warrant, Counsel conteded, Bishop Dwyer swore recklessly that lie believed Sister Ligonri to he in the hands of Orangemen. If he believed that he should have known she was being supported. Yet-, he swore she was without lawful means of support. Counsel concluded his address, which was one of four hours duia lion, by submitting that arrogance in this case had driven Bishop Dwyer to his downfall. JUDGE SUMS UP. SYDNEY, July 13. judge Ferguson summing up in th« Ligouri claim, stressed the fact that there must be no question of religion to enter into the case. Tho issues before the jury, lie said, involved no sectarian question whatever. Unfortunately, however, it was impossible to bide the fact that there had been sectarianism involved in the case. Then were questions that were asked tending to bring in for consideration the propriety of the Convent system. He said ilm Wagga Convent had undoubtedly been put upon its defence to some ov tent, but for any inquiry into tho Convent system this was not an appropriate tribunal. He would be very sorry to

ailed upon to enter into such an in,)(ijrv, as ho was sure that if he did. ho would lie unable to get away from bis preconceived views, which views were entirely the result of his own Protestant upbringing. His Honour continued: “A good deal of morbid interest- has arisen in this case from a suggestion that was made that the plaintiff had been subjected to gross ill-treatment. But the whole of flu' evidence, including her own, has disproved this. Whatever the jury’s verdict might ■he (lie declared). no fair-minded man- no Protestant, however, bigoted- could but rejoice Hint these imputations had been confuted.”

The Judge then dealt with the incidents preceding the plaintiff’s departure from the Wagga Convent, saying that she obviously bad misunderstood the Sister’s ministrations, which had had a sinister meaning to her. Regarding the Thompsons, to whom Sister Ligouri went, when she left the Convent, his Honour said that “it was very unfortunate for her that she L not gone to somebody who possessed a little more common sense.” Tf they, (the Thompsons) believed the plaintiff’s story about attempted murder, then their obvious duty was to inform the police. They, however, formed the opinion that the only way to protect the girl was to seek the protection of the Orange Lodge. “T don’t, think so,” added his Honour. “and if the police had been informed. there would have been no need to appeal to Protestant justice, nor for tbo employment of the melodramatic methods of the picture show. Deal in v with the plaintiff’s disappearance from Hi,, Convent, the Judge said that Bishop Dwyer had sworn the information after making inquiries. Therefore, what the plaintiff had to prove was that the information was sworn without reasonable cause, and with malice.

His Honour then repeated bis reasons for refusing a non-suit. The .Judge put tho three questions to the jury: (1) Did the defendant (Dr Dwyer) take reasonable care to inform himself of th\, true facts of the case? (o) Did he honestly believe the case he laid before the Magistrate? 'l’ho third question, which would only become material if they failed to answer one or other ol the fust two questions, was, as follows: Was the defendant, actuated by malice? Stating that they had now come to the real case, his Honour reviewed tile evidence on this aspect- and described the law thereon. The Jury then retired.

THE JURY’S FINDING. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. (Received This Day at 8 a.m.) SYDNEY, This Day. In tho Liguori case, the-’Judge returned to Court, after the six hours allowed for the Jury’s retirement. In answer to the usual question, the Foreman said they had not agreed upon a verdict, but- to a certain degree they bad arrived at a majority verdict. I [is Honour informed him that if three jurymen were unanimous, he would take that verdict. The Jury again retired, and a few minutes later returned. The Foreman asked that assuming they had agreed on a verdict upon the first two questions, was it necessary to give an answer, yes or no, on the third question. llis Honour intimated that be would take a majority verdict on each of the three questions. Tho Jury again retired, and at 9.45

p.TU. returned, and the Foreman handed the Judge a paper with the answer “No” to each question. Counsel for defendant then asked for it verdict for defendant, and counsel for plaintiff asked his Honour to return a verdict for plaintiff and assess damages. The Judge then directed the Jury, as they had replied “No” on the question of malice, to find a verdict for the defendant. The Jury thereupon returned a verdict for defendant by direction. Largo crowds waited for hours outside the Court, and loudly cheered the verdict. VOTING OF THE JURY. (Received This Day at 9.40 a.m.) SYDNEY, Tliis Day. Tn the Ligouri ease the jury’ answered the first two questions by a maioritv of three .to one, and the third question unanimously. Justice Ferguson granted an application by Counsel for plaintiff, for a, stay of proceedings.