JUDGMENT GIVEN

Hokitika Guardian, 30 June 1932, Page 5

JUDGMENT GIVEN

FOR DR LISTON. LOAN WAS NOT AUTHORISED. (Per Press Association — Copyright.) WELLINGTON, June 29. That, on law, the plaintiff could not succeed, there being no proof of agency, or of implied authority"." fir' a" borrow* money, was the decision reached by Mr Justice MacGregor in h':s reserved judgment delivered in the Supreme Court to-day, in the case in which Thomas Campbell claimed £3,300 from Rigr View Dr Liston, Roman. Catholic Bi i, of tho Auckland Diocese,

Judgment waa thus given for the defendant, Dr Liston, but he was not allowed costs. His Honour held that costs should not be given because of charges or insinuations, which he had found to be unfounded, being made during the trial against Rev. Father Campbell. The Judge said that it had been estab’ished that the plaintiff did advance :be principal amounts claimed to the Parish Priest at Whangarei on loan at five and a half per cent, towards the erection of the church ; but the plainiilT must prove more than that, Hr must prove that the Parish Priest,. Ins son, in negotiating the loan, did so <v b : i T e acting as the agent, and with the authority of the then Bivhop, Dr Clean since deceased.

Mr Justice MacGregor said that U might be conceded that Father ■Campbell, oe Parish Priest, was allowed by bis- Bishop to .exercise large powers in connection with the new church and site. He was, no doubt, authorised by the Bishop, to call for tender’, to sign a contract, and also to purchase certain additional land required; but in His ■Honour's opinion, he was certainly not held out by the Bishop as having the power, -or the authority, to borrow money for the purposes of the new church, or otherwise. The Bishop himself had no such wide power. His Honour also said that he was equally satisfied that there was no evidence that Father Campbell was given any express authority by Bishop 'Cleary to borrow money. His Honour said that, during the progress of the trial,, charges, or insinuations were persistently made on behalf Ot the defence, against Rev. Father Campbell, the leading witness for the plaintiff, that he had in -some way, misappropriated certain of the parish funds, and, in particular, one sum of about £IOOO, which, it was found impossible to trace in the parish books. “I am satisfied from the evidence, that the’e charges were unfounded and should not have be'en made,” said His Honour. “There was no real affirmutiro evidence in support, of them, and Father Campbell himself categorially denied them. Further, 1 think they must., or should, have been known by (he defendant and bis advisers to be unfounded. Father Campbell remains a Priest of ’-he Roman Catholic. Church, and is still in the employment of that Church as assistant t’arish Priest at Blenheim. It is admitted that no I charge has ever been made against him I by bis ecclesiastical superiors in respect I „f any su "tested misappropriation of I parish funds. Tt- is incredible that a Priest, who was known, or reasonably suspected,_to be guilty of such an offence, would bo allowed to retain his position in the Church. For these reasons, T do not .allow any costs to the defendant."