THE LIGOURI CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 July 1921, Page 9

THE LIGOURI CASE.

EVIDENCE BY THE BISHOP,

JUSTIFICATION OF ARREST, NO MENTAL RESERVATIONSTHE ALLEGED DOSE OF POISON. The Sydney newspapers to hand by the last mail contain detailed reports of the evidence of Dr. Roman Catholic Bishop of Wagga, in the Liguori case.

Bishop Dwyer gave an account of the incidents following the flight of the nun in her iii<sir. attire. He went with the inspector of police to Thompson’s house in the hojie of seeing Sister Liguori, but they said, “She is not here now.” Later he went to Sydney, saw the Inapector-Genetal of Police, and the Solicitor-General, and was told that on the information in his possession Ire would be justified in issuing a warrant. He then went to Mr. Camphin. a chamber magistrate, and the information was drawn up and brought to him to be duly sworn and signed.

His Honor: It is necessary that I ask you again whether you believe the statements contained in the information to be true?—Yes, I believed those statements to be true—that Sister Liguori was of unsound mind and had insulficient means of support. Continuing, witness said: If she was declared sane my duties ceased. If insane, the sisters and the convent —myself—were responsible -for seeing .that her treatment was provided for in hospital until she became well. And then?—She could, if she wished, remain with us or go back to her own home and her parents. And you would provide the means? —Yes, to take her comfortably home.

Is it an unusual thing for a sister to leave the convent with the goodwill and permission of the authorities? —It’s not usual, but it does happen. They can go? There are no restrictions?—Yes, there are no restrictions. They must observe certain formalities. They are provided with sufficient means?—Yes. If they have a dowry it is returned to them ?—Yes. DISPENSATION FROM VOWS. You yourself have not the power to give dispensation from vows?—No. But through you is the channel of appeal?—Yes. You received an application for dispensation from the plaintiff?—Yes, but I did not deal with it. I sent it to tne Apostolic Delegate. I was informed that the dispensation had been granted. Mr. Shand, for the plaintiff, then proceeded to cross-examine the witness. You know that Liguori, after whom the girl was named, is one whose teachings are recognised, and that you are justified in following them? —Yes. And Liguori openly states that it is justified to conceal in a Court on oath? —No. You swear that?—Yes. Don’t you know that you are taught that you can properly mentally reserve in a court of justice?—No, if reserve means telling a lie. -I look upon a lie and anything like it as perjury. Mr. Shand: But are yon not taught that ih a crisis you can misunderstand a question? —I don’t think so. I don’t believe it that way. I never learnt it. Do know that Dr. Leahy applied co the magistrate at Wagga for a warrant and was refused?—Yes, I heard 1 about it. A person who leaves a convent under such circumstances, not intending to re- , turn, is an apostate? —Do you underI stand the word, sir? I lam asking you that?—An apostate I is one who turns back on the religious j order to which he or she belongs. *1 A person who leaves in these circumstances, without sanction and without i returning, is an apostate?—One who so goes away after being in a religious order is called an apostate. An apostate from what?—From the I religious order. QUESTION OF PENALTIES. I The person who thus leaves is sub- | ject to discipline; it is an ecclesiastical offence?-—Yes. They are subject to penalties?—No, I do not say that, except the penalty of having an inquiry made, and dismissal probably. Is one of the penalties in your hand the sword of ex-communication? —Yes, px-cortimunicatioh is one of the penalties which can be- inflicted.

Don't you adhere to the teachings df Liguoti on the question of the oath? — No. I don't adhere to them.

Will you admit that he recommends— His Honor: You cannot examine on the opinion of another gentleman. Do you hold that it is permissible for a witness to dissimulate the truth? — No; I don’t hold with that.

Do you hold that where an offence is committed secretly the person committing it can deny it without committing sin?—-Who would ask the person—

The judge: No, he cannot deny on oath.

Mr. Campbell, for the defendants It has been suggested that the teaching of your faith and the articles or your faith is that a lie under any circumstances may not be unlawful or be forbidden?—As far as I know, a lie Is forbidden on every occasion, and is always unlawful.

THE MOTHER SUPERIOR’S EVIDENCE.

Mary Dunne, known in religion as Sister Mary Stanilaus, reverend mother of the presentation nuns at Wagga, and for 47 years a member of the order, was • the next witness for the defence. She . said the office of mother superior was subject to election by the community, j She had several times been superior. The term of election was for three j years, and not more than two terms of three years each could be hold in succession. Witness said the plaintiff’s duties were neither arduous nor laborious. During the three days before she left the convent she seemed to be in an excite,! condition, and witness thought she was not herself. There was not an unkind word said to plaintiff, nor anything calculated'' to inflict pain upon her. . During his cross-examination Mr. Shand asked the mother superior: You knew she had expressed fear that she would be taken back io the convent again with the brother? —Yes, that was her impression—that evervbodv was ■ t 0 bring her bock,

‘You took the view that if she left properly she was free to do so, but if she did not leave with permission you had a right to get her back, and send her to her parents? —Yes. Did the bishop not say you were justified by hook or by crook in getting her back?—No, no.

Girls had left before, and been brought back?—-Yes. . And against their will?—No.

“ESCAPE” OF TWO NOVICES.

Two left at Wagga and were brought back?—Yes; but they were novitates. One was about 18 years, and the other 19 or 20.

They were locked up?—No, never, nor treated in any way unkindly. We provided for both of them, and correspond with both of them still. Did another girl want to leave tfie convent and go and throw herself in the dam ?—Yes. It was a case of temporary insanity.

She wanted to leave?—l don’t think she knew what she wanted.

Did she ask to leave? —No, she did not-

-And the first information you had of her intention to leave was finding her in the dam?—She did not inform anyone she wanted to leave.

Is there much of this insanity there? —No.

Replying to Mr. Campbell, the witness said that a nun who was suspected of an attempt to commit suicide was sent io a Government institution. She recovered, and after she had asked “over and over again,” she was taken back into the community. Evidence was given by Sister Mary Brenda, the nun whom the plaintiff had stated gave her the dose of medicine which she thought was poison. The witness described how she assisted the plaintiff, when she returned to the convent, to get into her bed. Referring to the incident of the medicine, Sister Brenda said the plaintiff asked her to get her a dose of oil. Witness asked her if it was the doctor’s orders, and she said “Yes.” Witness prepared the oil in black coffee. It was the usual dose given in the convent. The plaintiff had prepared a similar dost) for the witness shortly before that. The witness herself mixed the dose for the plaintiff. The coffee was no stronger ihan usual. The sister was in bed. Witness assisted her to sit up, putting her arms around her while she was taking it. The plaintiff then took a f biscuit. She did not complain about the dose, and did not suggest that there was anything unusual in the flavour. The witness added that she sat with the plaintiff for about 20 minutes, during which time she was perfectly quiet Thinking the plaintiff would get a little sleep, she sprinkled her with holy water, as was the custom. There was nothing unusual about sprinkling holy water on the bed. The witness did not say to the plaintiff at any time that she might die of pneumonia, or that, after administering the oil, “You won’t want another dose.” She did not take her pillows from her and lay hqr flat on the bed and put her hands down the side; nor did she say, “You won’t get out of bed for six months.”

Mr. Campbell* Is it a fact that while she was lying in bed you were, peeping aj-ound the curtains at her?—The curtains were not drawn.

Were you and the plaintiff together taught that the sprinkling of holy water was in any way associated with the idea of death?—No.