THE EX-NUN.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 July 1921, Page 5

THE EX-NUN.

LOSES HER CASE. THE JUDGE’S SUMMING Ut>, QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received July 13, 11.20 p.m. Sydney, July 13. In the Ligouri case, counsel for plaintiff, continuing his address to the jury, said the bishop had shown himself an arrogant, proud man, who would not brook, opposition, and his action in issuing a warrant showed he had had his own way in the community, and that he meant to have it. Referring to the fact that the bishop had not applied to Archdeacon Pike, of Wagga, who knew Ligouri’s whereabouts, counsel said this was not because the bishop thought, the information would be refused, but because sectarianism had blinded his reason and judgment. In obtaining the warrant the bishop swore recklessly. He believed Ligouri was in the hands of Orangemen, and, if he believed that, he knew she was being supported, yet he swore she was without lawful means of support. Counsel concluded an address of four hours’ duration by submitting that arrogance in this case 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. Unfortunately, however, it was impossible to hide the fact that there had been sectarianism involved in the case. Questions were asked tending to bring in for consideration the propriety of the convent system. The VVagga Convent had undoubtedly been put upon its defence to some extent, but for any inquiry into the convent system, t.hig was not an appropriate tribunal. He would be very sorry to be called upon to enter into such an inquiry, as he felt sure, if he did, he would bo unable to get, away from his preconceived views which were entirely the result of his Protestant upbringing. His Honor continued: A good deal of morbid interest has arisen in the case from the suggestion that plaintiff had been subjected to gross ill-treatment, but the whole evidence, including her own, disproved this. Whatever the jury’s verdict might be, no fair-minded man, and no Protestant, however bigoted, could hut rejoice that these imputations had been confuted. The judge then dealt with the incidents preceding the plaintiff’s departure from the convent, saying she had obviously misunderstood the sisters’ piinistrations, which had a- sinister meaning to her. Regarding the Thimpsons, to whom . Ligouri went when she left the convent, His Honor said it was very unfortunate for her that she had not gone to somebody who possessed a little common horsesense. If they believed plaintiff’s story about the attempted murder, their obvious duty was to inform the police. They, however, formed an opinion that the only way to protect, the girl was to seek the protection of th? Orange Lodge. “I don’t think so,” added His Honor, “and if the police had been informed there would have been no need to appeal to a Pro-test,ant justice, nor for the employment of the melodramatic, methods of a picture show.”

Dealing with plaintiff’s disappearance from the convent, the judge said that the bishop swore an information after making inquiries, and. what plaintiff had to prove was that the information was sworn without reasonable cause and without malice. He then repeated the reasons for refusing a 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 case he laid before the magistrate? and (3), which only became material if they failed to answer one or other of the first two questions, was he actuated by malice ? Stating that they had now come to the real case, His Honor reviewed the evidence on this aspect and described the law thereon. The jury then retired. VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT. THE JURY’S DIFFICULTIES. Received July 14, 1.25 a.m. Sydney, July 13. In the Ligouri case, 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 their verdict, but, to a certain degree, had arrived at a majority verdict. ( His Honor informed him that if three jurymen were unanimous he would take that verdict. The jury again retired for a few minutes, and later returned. The foreman asked whether, assuming they agreed to a verdict upon the first two questions, was it necessary to give an answer of yes or no on the third question. Counsel for defendant then asked for a verdict for the defendant, and counsel for plaintiff asked His Honor to return a verdict for plaintiff and assess the damages. The judge then directed the jury that as they had replied “No” on the question of malice, to find a verdict for the defendant. The jury thereupon returned a verdict for defendant by direction. Large crowds waited for hours outside the court, and loudly cheered the verdict. —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn.

[ln this case Sister Ligouri claimed damages from Bishop Dwyer for being arrested on his information.]