EX-SISTER LIGUORI

New Zealand Tablet, 4 August 1921, Page 17

EX-SISTER LIGUORI

ACTION AT LAW AGAINST DR. DWYER. THE JUDGE’S SUMMING UP. VERDICT FOR THE BISHOP. The law suit which Bridget Mary Partridge, formerly Sister M. Liguori, brought against Right Rev. Dr. J. W. Dwyer, Bishop of Wagga Wagga—heard before Mr. Justice Ferguson and a jury of —has created much public interest. GROUNDS OF PLAINTIFF’S ACTION. The grounds of plaintiff’s action as detailed in the pleas of her attorney are; That the defendant appeared before a Justice of the Peace and falsely and maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause informed the justice on oath that the plaintiff was a person deemed to be insane and was without sufficient means of support. That the defendant falsely and maliciously, and without reasonable cause, caused the Justice of the Peace to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the plaintiff, and bring her before a stipendiary magistrate to be dealt with according to law. That the defendant by virtue of the warrant so issued caused the plaintiff’s arrest and imprisonment for a long time, and caused the stipendiary magistrate to remand her for medical observation, and he again brought before him in custody, when, no evidence being offered, the magistrate discharged the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had been injured in her reputation, suffered great pain of body and of mind, was prevented from attending to her affairs, and incurred expense in releasing herself from imprisonment, and defending herself from the charges made against her and for medical and legal charges. JUDGE’S SUMMING UP: A REMARKABLE LINE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. In summing up, his Honor gave the facts in the case. To arrest and charge a person with lunacy, if done without reasonable cause, was a great indignity, and called for damages. But if the defendant acted without malice and with reasonable cause, the defendant had no redress. Religion had nothing to do with the matter. The questions about the Bishop’s speech at Wagga should not influence the jury, unless they reflected on his credit as a witness. Unfortunately, his Honor went on, it was impossible to hide the fact that there had been sectarian feeling involved in the conduct of the case, and they had the remarkable spectacle of the plaintiff, a member of the Roman Catholic faith, being asked questions wheih were designed to suggest that, people of her faith could not be believed on their oath. There were other questions asked, possibly intended to bring into question the propriety of the convent system. At any rate, that particular convent, Mount Erin, was undoubtedly put . upon its defence to some extent. As far as possible, he had kept the hearing within bounds. He had to remark several times that the Court was not making inquiry into the way in which the convent was conducted. But there was one chapter in its history which had been fully investigated. There was one matter, the manner in which the plaintiff had been treated during the years she had been in that convent. A good deal of the interest, perhaps morbid interest, that had arisen in the case, had arisen from statements or suggestions that the plaintiff, during those years, had been subjected to illtreatment in the convent, and on that point they had heard evidence in the fullest detail. Charge of 111-Treatment. She had complained of ill-treatment, but her own letters showed that she was not ill-treated. Then she was asked to go into details of her treatment in the convent. She complained that she was over-worked, and that duties were given to' her which properly belonged, she thought, to the lay Sisters. She had given details of that work, and it showed a very complete subdivision of the day; but apparently that was the ordinary routine of ~ the convent. That t was the discipline to which she volun-

tarily submitted with full knowledge when she entered the convent. She said that no doubt the work she was doing was better for her health than teaching work, except that in her opinion she got too much of it. She said she did not ask the Mother Superior to relieve her, or any one to take her place. Then she gave an example of a dispute about a broom. Taken individually, each Sister at the convent was admitted by her to have treated her kindly. She complained that she had not been given a cell, but omitted to say that she was given one three months before she left. His Honor did not say she was untruthful. The instances of alleged unkindness were given in the evidence, and she admitted that she did not complain of them to the Bishop when he asked her if she had any complaints to make. . “Now, gentlemen,” continued his Honor, “that is the whole evidence you have about unkindness shown to plaintiff during the years she was in the convent up to the day she left. Whatever your verdict may be,' I am sure there is no fair-minded man in the community —no Protestant, however militant his Protestantism may —who will not share with his Catholic fellow-citizens in a sense of gratification that these imputations, so far as plaintiff is concerned, have been refuted —not by the contradiction of people interested —not by a balance of conflicting testimony but by her own deliberate oath.” Regrettable Charges. His Honor regretted that he had to refer to charges that if the nuns had not been cruel to her they had been * t/* cruel to others. They had the facts ot the case. His Honor said it is incredible * that the plaintiff was not aware of the facts, because the nun, who became deranged had been back in the convent for years, and was one of the nuns with whom she was in daily association. Although the plaintiff was sitting behind her counsel, no question was asked by him in his cross-examination of the MotherSuperior to suggest that the Mother-Superior was not telling the full truth. What the Mother Superior says is that the unfortunate girl in question .became mentally deranged; that she never asked to leave the convent. But the suggestion was that she was so ill-treated, and found it was impossible to escape from the ill-treatment that she was driven to try to end her life. It seems that after the girl was found, she was taken, not to her religious institution, but to a Government hospital for the insane, and when restored to health she was, at her own. repeated request, taken back into the convent. She is there to this day, a happy and contented member of the community. Gentlemen, it seems impossible that the plaintiff herself could have been unaware of that fact. I can only hope that it was not she who suggested that the questions should, be asked with their imputation. Had anybody else asked them, not knowing the facts, I could only say it was very unfortunate for anyone to take the responsibility of prompting counsel to make such imputations without first of all taking the trouble to learn the facts. So much I think it my duty to say before coming to the events out of which this action arose. What Plaintiff Knew. The plaintiff says she had been dissatisfied with convent life, and made up her mind to go. She knew that she could have applied, and be released and returned to her friends in Ireland. But she found it hard to approach the Mother Superior. She has told you she was getting run down. Probably her nerves were getting unstrung. Finally, when there was the trivial dispute about a broom, it seems to have been the last straw. She made up her mind suddenly to leave--and left. , And I may point out here that she had no difficulty in leaving. She had no bars to break or walls to climb. The Sisters do not seem to have been locked up. What kept the nuns in the convent, no doubt, was the respect they had for their vows, which would be as strong an obligation as bolts and bars! His Honor explained how she went to Burgess’s, and then returned voluntarily to the convent. Then the incidents of the evening were recounted. “The girl,” said his Honor, was in a condition of listeria.”

, Lack of Common Sense. "We have not seen the Thompsons," his Honor said,

“but I canont help thinking that it is very unfortunate thing for the plaintiff that at that time she did not meet somebody who would have shown a little common horsesense. Had she told any sensible person that an attempt had been made to poison her, what evidence there was would have been passed on, and it would then have been found that the girl had left the convent after having been on perfectly friendly terms with the other nuns, and the Mother Superior, for' years before; and would have examined the grounds for this monstrous idea, and the basis of this monstrous charge. A Question of Honest Belief. If they believed that the girl was telling the truth — believed that the inference she had drawn was correct, that they had tried to poison her — then they had an obvious course to pursue. They had an experienced officer of police at hand, a man who would have known how to deal with this matter at once. “Can you, imagine anyone honestly believing that a girl who had a design in her mind such as that refraining from doing two obvious things,” added his Honor. “Don’t you think that anybody really believing that this girl who says an attempt was made to poison her would at once have had her examined by a doctor to see whether she was really suffering from the effects of poison ?” Mr. Shand says, in effect, that the only way that this girl could be protected from being taken back to the convent was by leaving her in charge of some such body as the Orange Lodge. Mr. Shand; No, your Honor, I did not say that. His Honor said he would be very sorry to think that anyone would have to go to the Orange Lodge or any other community in order to be protected from the crime which this girl says was attempted. Mr. Shand: You misunderstand me. His Honor; All I can say is, Ido not agree with that. It would be a deplorable thing if the only protection people in this country had against the interference with one’s personal liberty was an application to some body outside a duly constituted officer of the law. Incapable People. There was no necessity, his Honor said, to hurry this young woman away at midnight. The law was strong enough to deal with this girl, even if she was in a convent. If the girl had been taken back t® the convent against her wish, anyone aware of the fact, and of the girl’s feelings, could at once have applied for the issue of a Avrit of habeas corpus, calling upon the convent to bring her into court, thus giving everyone an opportunity of making explanations there. It was very unfortunate that, at the time the whole matter was still fresh, the girl was not put into the hands of people who were capable of telling what was the right thing to do. The convent had been twitted with sending out search parties after the girl; but, his Honor said, people would have a poor opinion of them if they had failed to do so. The Bishop’s Letter. Commenting on the Bishop’s letter to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, his Honor said he did not know; whether he or the jury, if they had been in his position, would have written in kindlier terms than those in which the letter was written. To the letter no reply was received. With the question, as far as good manners were concerned, they had nothing to do. But what was more important was that the letter was not shown to the person most concerned. She was never told that her place at the convent was open to her if she wished to come back, and that if she did not wish to come back they were prepared to find funds for her support. It might have been that the people in whose charge she was thought they were doing better for her, but even so, why was she not given an opportunity of deciding it herself? What possible reason could there be for withholding from her, or refusing her an opportunity of knowing what proposals had been made, and what view the convent authorities took of her conduct? * Disappeared Into the Dark. She was taken away that night, and disappeared into the 4»rk. They knew now where she went, and where she was from that time onwards. But, in considering the conduct of the defendant, they had to put themselves in his

position, and remember what he knew —not what he knew now —when he took the step he did. He made inquiries, and swore an information in which he said she was a person deemed to be insane, and without, sufficient means of support. Questions for Jury. His Honor proceeded to say that he was going to ask the jury these questions: “Did the defendant take reasonable care to inform himself as to the true facts of the case? “Did he honestly believe the case which he laid before the magistrate? “And, unles # the plaintiff has satisfied you that you should answer one or other of these questions in the negative, then the defendant is entitled to a verdict. “I am also going to ask you a further question, which only becomes material if you find against him on one of the other questions; Was he actuated by malice?” What the Defendant Could Not Do. “The jury had to look at the matter from the point of view of the defendant at the time he laid the information. As far as possible, the jurymen should put themselves in the defendant’s position, and then say how far he acted as a reasonable man, and how far he acted in good faith. It is for you to say whether, as a reasonable man, he should have rested content with Dr. Leahy’s opinion and the facts he knew, or whether he should have taken further steps to ascertain additional facts. He could not see the plaintiff. He could not have her examined again by a doctor, and the object of his proceedings was to have her examined by a doctor in order that the authorities might have opinion on which they could act. If you come to the conclusion that he honestly believed she was insane, and took reasonable care to inform himself in connection with that part of the case, then what about her means? Her Means of Support. “Defendant took it upon himself to state that she was without sufficient means of support. He knew she had no money. She came to the convent without any, and went away without any. He knew she went without clothes. He knew she had been to Thompson’s house, and that the Thompsons said she had left there; but they did not know where she had gone, she having, according to them, “come on her own and gone on her own.” Neither he nor the police, with all the inquiries they were prosecuting, could get any information about her. She simply disappeared. What further inquiries could he have made to satisfy himself that she was being well looked after? Who was there to give him information of that sort. Why should he go to Archdeacon Pike, who had already refused information to others? “Why was he to assume that the unknown people with whom she might be were prepared to do everything possible in her interest ? The people acting against him had not shown him any great example of charity in their opinions of him and his associates, and I do not know that he was called upon to exhibit a monopoly of charity towards them concerning their motives and intentions. I have tried to put myself in the defendant s positionto get his ecclesiastical character treating myself as an individual who had been put in a position in which I was morally responsible for the welfare of a woman who acted as the plaintiff. If Her Mother Asked Him? “Supposing the plaintiff’s mother had arrived in NewSouth Wales at that time, and had gone to the Bishop and questioned him, what would he have had to say, if she asked him 4 where is my daughter?’ He would' have to say I do not know.’ If she asked, him whether her daughter had left the convent, he would say 4 yes,’ and asking the circumstances, would find that the girl had left in her nightdress and barefooted. 4 Well, what became of her?’ the mother would as'k; and then ho would say, she went to Thompson’s. Is she there yet?’ ‘They say she. is not, but has gone, they do not know where.’ Would the mother not then say, 4 why, for all you know she is in a water hole. And what answer would the Bishop have had, on the. information then in his possession ? So that question I leave to you.- I am ■ assuming here, of course, that he would have told the mother the girl was out of her mind,

or that he believed she was insane. That is the case from - the defendant’s point of view. What Were the Bishop’s Motives? “The case for the plaintiff is that the Bishop was not* actuated by the motives ho says actuated —that is to say, the only motive that would justify a man in his position acting as he did, namely, a desire to have a person he believed to be insane and without support properly attended to and her case properly inquired into. If he acted from some other motive—some indirect —then that is what the law calls malice. That is another question, and lam going to ask you: Has the plaintiff satisfied you that the defendant was actuated by malice? It is put to you that he was very anxious to get her out of the custody of the people with whom sh« then was —suggested, apparently members of the Orange Lodge. 1 do not think there is anything in the evidence showing that at that time anyone connected with the Orange Lodge had her. We do not know whether the Thompsons were Protestants or not.. Of course, if you come to the conclusion that the Bishop knew, or had reason to know, that she was being well and properly cared for, then you will draw the conclusion, probably, that ho had some other motive than the motive he claims actuated him in taking the steps he did. No Suggestion of Sending Her Back. “Mr. Shand based a large part of his argument upon what took place at Wagga between the defendant, Dr. Leahy, and Sheehey in proceedings which were sought to be taken before the magistrate there, and upon the fact that the Bishop did not disclose to the magistrate who granted the order in Sydney that these proceedings had taken place at Wagga. These are matters for your very serious consideration. It occurs to me that no one can have supposed that the result of the proceedings would have been to restore the plaintiff to the convent. The effect of the information would not be to direct her return there, but to ascertain if she was sane or insane. “The law required two things to be established, and no unnecessary obstacles were put in the way of people who honestly take steps to have inquiries made in these cases. But before a verdict could bo given against defendant, plaintiff must show that defendant acted without reasonable care, and was actuated by malice. His Honor concluded his direction to the jury at about TO minutes to 3 p.m. The jury then retired. \ crdict for Defendant. On returning into Court at 9.45 p.m. his Honor asked tho foreman of the jury whether they had agreed on a verdict, and the reply was “Yes.-” His Honor: Are you unanimous, or is it by a majority? The foreman; By a majority on the first two questions, and we are unanimous on the last question. His Honor (reading from the paper containing the answers to the questions handed to him by the foreman) : The gentlemen of the jury answer each question “No.” Mr. Flannery: On these answers I will ask your Honor to enter a verdict for tile defendant. Mr- Shand : I submit that you cannot enter that ver* dict. m Your Honor should direct the jury that in answering Ao to the first and 'second questions malice follows in law*. Your Honor should direct the jury now to return a verdict for tho plaintiff and assess damages. Mi. I lannery; I am not to be taken as assenting to that proposition in law. His Honor (addressing the jury) ; Have you taken into consideration, gentlemen, the question whether, if the defendant did not honestly believe the case which he laid be- - ' fore the magistrate, he could have acted in good faith without malice ' o The foreman: I think so, your Honor. His Honor: You have discussed that? Yes. . His Honor: I understand that by.a majority you find that the defendant did not honestly believe the case which ho laid before the magistrate? The foreman: 'Yes. - His Honor : Have you considered whether, in that case, 3 he could have acted in good faith-that he could haveJ acted from a proper motive in laying the information fM

The foreman: Yes. " His Honor: And you adhere to your finding that he was not guilty of malice? The foreman: Yes. His Honor: In that case I direct you to find a verdict upon these answers for the defendant. It amounts to a verdict for the defendant, I take it that is what, on my direction, you mean, because I told you that unless you found that the plaintiff had proved both of these things there must be a verdict for the defendant. I take it you intend that to bo a verdict for the defendant. The jury then, by direction, returned a verdict for the defendant. His Honor, in dismissing the jury, said: “I am sorry you have been kept so long over th* case. I thank you for your assistance. Mr. Shand: I ask for a stay of proceedings. His Honor said that he would grant a stay. After the Verdict. There was a scene of excitement when the jury returned their verdict. An attempt r at applause in the gallery was at first only a feeble effort but, gathering courage, portion of the audience, particularly the women, began vigorously to clap their hands. His Honor held up his hand in remonstrance, and policemen and court orderlies quickly quelled the disturbance, and the audience filed out, meanwhile talking excitedly. Loud cheers were heard from the crowd waiting outside while Mr. Flannery, K.C., was receiving congratulations from friends in the court. The large assemblage outside seemed loth to disperse, and ringing cheers, mingled with a few boo-hoos, re-echoed in King Street until the strong force of police in attendance gradually persuaded the excited crowd to move on.