THE EX-NUN’S CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 July 1921, Page 4

THE EX-NUN’S CASE.

BISHOP DWYER’S EVIDENCE. NOT AFRAID OF DISCLOSURES. By Telegraph.-Press A.un Copyright. Sydney, July 8 Bishop Dwyer gave evidence that hej received a letter from Sister Ligouri explaining how sbe left the convent' anil expressing a wish to see him. He wrote a reply expressing regret at the course Sister Ligouri had taken befoie consulting him, and saying that he was willing to see her. This lettsr, however, was not delivered to Sister Lijwi as hen, whereabouts then were unknown.

Bishop Dwyer explained that he took his subsequent action regarding Sister Ligouri after securing an opinion froirt Dr. Leahy, who had attended her at thd convent, that the sister was deranged in mind. The Bishop tiian erne to Sydney where, in reply to Inquiries made in official quarters, he reco : ved a letter from the Inspector General of Police stating the police inspector at Wagga and Dr. Tivey, who enn’inod her, reported that they cou’a find no traces of insanity, and she refused to return to the convent. Her whereabouts wer« then unknown.

At this stage an affidavit by Dr. Leahy was produced expressing the* opinion that Sister Ligouri was of uni sound mind and should be placed undeij proper care and control. Bishop Dwyer explained how lie secure ed the issue of a warrant, after consult-* ing the Solicitor-General’s department) and a magistrate, detailing the circum l, stances of the case.

In cross-examination Bishop Dwye® was asked if he had told the court all he knew, without mental He said “Yes.” Pressed on the doc-i trine of mentg.l reservations hq declared! that he did not know that you coulct properly mentally reserve in the courts of justice on oath. A lie on oath waa perjury. It transpired that the application for a warrant, made at Wagga on tha grounds of Sister Ligouri’s insanity, was refused, but Bishop Dwyer did not in-« form the Sydney authorities when applying for a warrant there. Asked why, he replied ‘ They did not ask me.”

Asked if he took the action because he was afraid Sister Ligouri wouM. 1 make disclosures, Bishop Dwyer said he was not afraid as to anything she could.’ disclose. o

MOTHER SUPERIOR’S EVIDENCE.

PLAINTIFF NEVER COMPLAINED HER REGRET AT ESCAPING. Received July 8, 9.30 p.m. London, July 8. In the Ligouri case the Mother Superior of Wagga Convent gave evidence that Ligouri’s duties were not arduous or laborious as had been alleged. Plaintiff complained greatly of sleeplessness and headaches. Three days before her escape she was greatly excited and ap" parently unhinged. On the morning of her escape she complained of a headache. When she came back after escaping she told witness she was sorry for what she had done. Witness denied scolding or reprimanding Ligouri in any way for her action, and in reply to a question Ligouri said everybody in the convent had been very kind to her, but certain things had worried her. Witness said there was no difficulty about a sister leaving the convent. If she was dissatisfied her wishes would be conveyed to the bishop, who would do everything necessary, Ligouri knew this. The Mother Superior smilingly denied any intention of murdering Ligouri, and added that the worst consequences of plaintiff's leaving the convent without permission would be that she would be compelled to leave the community, but her future would be providetFlor. There was not the slightest ground for the pressed fear of plaintiff that she would, be compulsorily taken back to the convent. Dr. Leahy gave evidence that he had known Ligouri since 1915. He thought! she was neurasthenic. She was fltrung and suffered from insomnia. When she first left the convent he of opinion that she was suffering from delusions, was of unsound mind and. had run away while so suffering.