BISHOP SUED

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 263, 30 June 1932, Page 5

BISHOP SUED

(Press. Assn. —

VERDICT FOR I)R. TiISTON IN RECENT AUCKLAND CASE NO AUTHORITY TO BORROW

•By Telissrauh- -Copyriglit).

WELLINGTON, Wednesday. That on law plaintiff could not succeed, there heing no proof oi' agency or Implied authority to borrow the money, was the d ieision reached hy Mr. Justice MacGrcgor in a reserved judgment delivered in the Suprome Court in the case in which Thomas Campbell claimed £3500 from Dr. Liston, Roman Catholic Bishop of Aucdcland. Judgment was given for defendant, but he was not allowed costs, Ilis Honour holding that they should not he given because of the charges or insinuations, which he found to be unl'ounded, made during the trial against Father Campbell, The Judge said it had heen established that plaintiff did advance* the principal amounts claimed to the parisli priest at Whangarei on loan at 5i per cent. towards the erection of a church, but plaintiff must prove more than that — he must prove that the parish priest, his son, in ncgotiating the loan, did so while acting as agent and with the authority of Bishop Cleary, since deceased. Wide Powers Ilis Ilonour said it might be conceded that Father Campbell, as parish priest, was allowed hy the Bishop to exercise -large powers in connection with the new church and site. He was no doubt authorised by the Bishop to call for tend'ws, to sign a contract, and also to purchase ccrtain additional land required but in His Honour's opinion he was certainly not held out by the Bishop as having power or authority to borrow money for Ihe purpose of a new church, or otherwisc; the Bishop himself had no such wide power. His Honour also said he was equally satisfied that there was no evidence that Father Campbell was given any cxpress authority hy Bishop Cleary to borrow ihe money. Unfounded In the course of judgment, His Honour said: "During the progress of the trial, charges or insinuations were persistently made on behalf of the defence against Father Campbell tbat he had in some way misappropriated certain parish funds, and in particular one sum of about £1000, which it was found impossible to trace on the parish books. I am satisfied from the eyidence that these charges are upfounded, and should not have been made. "There was no real affirmativc evidence of these charges in the case, and Father Campbell categorically denied them. Further, I thinlc they must and should have been lcnown by defendant antl his advisers to have been unfounded. "Father Campbell remains a priest of the Roman Catholic church and is still in the employment of that church as assistant priest at Blenheim. It is submitted that no charg*e has ever been made against him hy his ecclesiastical employers suggesting misappropriation of parish funds. It is incredible that a priest that is lcnown or reasonably suspected to be guilty of such an offence would be allowed to retain his position in tho church. For this reason I do not allow any costs for tho defendant,"