Slander Against a Convent A CLERGYMAN SUED FOR LIBEL.

Te Aroha News, Volume V, Issue 212, 23 July 1887, Page 2

Slander Against a Convent A CLERGYMAN SUED FOR LIBEL.

In the Supreme Court, Laxmce^ton, Mr Byron Miller moved for a rule nisi calling on the Rev. Charles IVicc, pastor of the Tamar-street Congregational Church, Launeehton, to show cause why a criminal information should not be laid against him for having published in the " Examiner " newspaper a defamatory libel upon the Lady Superior and the nuns of the Piesentation Con\ ent in Launeeston. The learned counsel said the words 4 ' defamatory libel " were used because he thought their Honors would agree with him, the affidavits ha-\ ing been read, that the publication, whether a libel or not, was at least obscene, and would share with him in the astonishment that any respectable journal should open its columns to a production unlit to be read by women and children, and still greater astonishment that an aged and reverend gentleman should ha\ c penned a production of fco hideous a chaiacter. An aiiida^t was put in from the Lacty Superior that she had read with honor the letter in respect of which pioceedingfc had been taken ; that she had ascertained the allegations to bo false ; that these were calculated to excite hatied, ill-will, and contempt towards such institution; and that she had never know n of any instance of impurity or laxity on the part of herself or any "other of the nuns in the convent, or any impurity in their teaching, and had never* heard a breath ot suspicion that their lives and teaching had been inconsistent with the obligations of their sacred vows, or thut such teaching had been other than salutatory to any. The teaching had been gratefully accepted by a large number of pupils who parsed through school. There was no mystery or secrecy in the life of the nuns of the convent. Their life was as open to public inspection and knowledge as that of any private family or educational institution in Tasmania. Following this came several other affidavits, including one fiom Dean Beechinor, and the following from the nuns of the convent:— l "That we, with the superioress, Ellen Beechinor (in leligion named Francis Xavier), are, and were on June 21, ISS7, and for some time previously, the whole of the nuns of the Com ent of the Presentation in Launceston, and that we aie by the rules of our order, and by our vows to Almighty God, under sole obligations to lives of perpetual chastity, obedience, and poverty ; and that our only secular vocation is the instruction of children." 2. "Each of us for herself makes oath, and saith that she hath never been guilty of an act of immorality or impropriety, nor hath any peison been guilty of any acts of immoiality towards her ; nor, during her residence in the said Conof the Presentation, hath she e\er heard or known of any act of immorality or impropriety being committed -within the walls of the said convent, or by any inmate thei eof, or any person connected with the said convent." 3. "Each of us forheiself makes oath, and states that it has never been taught or told directly or indirectly that any breach by us of our vows of perpetual chastity is permissible or allowable under any circumstances ; but that, on the contrary, it hath been the universal teaching of the priests of our Holy Catholic Church that a breach of our vow of purity would be a deadly sin." The Chief Justice said: — "As far as I can see, no further denial is necessary. After an argument and brief consultation, he announced that the Court considered it an arguable question whether the letter did or did not apply to complainants. It might or might not have done so. He would now express no opinion as to that. His Honor added that he also considered it arguable as to what position the Court was in in regard to gi anting a criminal information to a private body. The complainants, although teachers in the schools, were private persons as distinguished from public persons holding public positions ; and it was a question, after the decision in " The Queen v. Labouchere," whether the information should be granted. Still, as it was an arguable matter, and there was ground enough to let the rule go and have the subject further discussed, the | Court would grant a rule returnable that day week. The case is creating a tremendous sensation throughout the island. At a subsequent sitting the Court granted a rule nit>i calling upon the Rev. Chas. Price, Independent minister at Launceston, to fahow cause why a criminal information should not be filed against him for libel contained in a letter bearing his signature, published in the "Examiner."