CONCLUSION OF LIGOURI ACTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 2303, 16 July 1921, Page 3

CONCLUSION OF LIGOURI ACTION.

BISHOP ABSOLVED FROM MALICE.

DAMAGES DISALLOWED.

Sydney, July 13

In the case in which Miss Partridge (formerly Sister Ligouri) claimed £5,000 damages from Bishop Dwyer for alleged wrongful arrest, counsel for plaintiff, continuing to address the jury, said that the Bishop had shown himself an arrogant and proud man, who would not brook opposition, and his action ’in issuing the warrant showed That he had had his own way in the community and lie meant to have it. Referring to the fact that the Bishop had not applied to Archdeacon Pike, of Wagga, who knew Sister Ligouri’s whereabouts, counsel said this was not because the Bishop thought Ihe information would be refused, but because sectarianism had blinded his reason and judgment. In obtaining the warrant, the Bishop swore recklessly that he believed that Sister Ligouri was in the hands of Orangemen, and if he believed that lie knew that she was being supported. Yet he swore that she was without lawful means of support. Counsel concluded his address of four hours’ duration by submitting that arrogance in this ease had driven the Bishop to his downfall.

Judge Ferguson, in summing up, stressed the fact that there was no question of religion in the case, the issues before the jury involving no sectarian question whatever. I lifer! unalely, however, it was impossible to hide the fact that there had been sectarianism involved in the case, Questions were asked lending 1.0 bring in for consideration the propriety of the convent system at Wagga. The convent undoubtedly had been put upon its defence to -erne extent, but for any inquiry into the convent system this was not an appropriate tribunal. Tie would be very sorry to be called upon to enter into such an inquiry, as he was sure if he did he rvould be un-

able lo get away from his preconceived views, which wfcre entirely the-result of his Protestant upbringing. His Honour continued that a good deal of morbid interest had arisen in the case from the suggestion that the plaintiff had been subjected lo gross ill-treatment, but the whole of the evidence, including her own, disproved this. Whatever the jury’s verdict might be, no fairminded man, and no Protestant, however bigoted, could but rejoice that these imputations had been refuted. The Judge then dealt with tho incidents preceding plaintiffs departure from the convent, saying that she obviously had misunderstood the sisters’ ministrations, which had a sinister meaning to her. Regarding the Thompsons, to whom Sister Ligouri went when she left the convent, Ilis Honour said it. was very unfortunate for her that she had not gone to somebody wlio possessed a little common horse-sense. If they believed plaintiff’s story a)>ou|; attempted murder, 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 tint Orange Lodge. “I don’t think so,” added llis Honour, “and if the police had been informed, there would have been no need for the employment of the melodramatic methods of picture shows.” Dealing with plaintiff’s disappearance from _the convent, the Judge said that the Bishop swore the information after making inquiries, and what plaintiff had to prove was that the information was sworn without reasonable cause, and with malice. He then repeated the reasons for refusing the non-suit, and put three questions to the jury: (1) Did defendant take reasonable care to inform himself of the true facts of the case? (2) Did he honestly believe the ease lie laid before

the magistrate! and (3) (which

only became material if they failed to answer one or the oilier of I lit* lirsf two questions), Was lie actual ed bv malice? Stating that they hod now come to.the real case, Ilis Honour reviewed the evidence on this aspect, and described the law Ihereon. The jury then retired.

The Judge returned to the 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 had arrived at a majority verdict. His .Honour informed him that if three of the jurymen were unanimous he would take that as a verdict. The jury again retired, and a few minutes later returned. The foreman asked whether, assuming (hey had agreed upon a verdict upon ifie first two questions, it was necessary to give an answer “yes" or “no" on the third question. Ilis Honour intimated that lie would take a majority verdict on each of the three questions.

The jury again retired, and at 9.45 p.m. returned, and the foreman handed the judge a paper with the answer “No” to each question.

Counsel for defendant then asked for a verdict for the defendant, and counsel for plaintiff asked His Honour to return a verdict for plaintiff, and assess the damages.

The Judge then directed the jury, as they had replied “No” on the question of malice, to find a verdict for defendant. The jury thereupon returned a verdict for defendant by direction.

Large crowds had waited for hours outside the Court, and loudly cheered the verdict.

. STAY OF PROCEEDINGS GRANTED. Sydney, July 14. In the Ligouri case, the jury answered the first two questions by a majority of three to. one, and the third question unanimously. Mr Justice Ferguson has granted an application by counsel for the plaintiff for a stay of proceedings.