SISTER LIGOURI'S CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 168, 16 July 1921, Page 7

SISTER LIGOURI'S CASE.

A MYSTIFYING VERDICT. WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? SYDNEY, July 13. The verdict in the Sister Libouri, case has caused a good deal of perplexity. The public is considerably mystified as to . what the jury's answers taken together really amount to. It is understood that the question of an appeal is under consideration. It is estimated that the total expenses on both sides so far involved is in the vicinity of f5,090.—(A. and N.Z. Cable.) Tn the action instituted tfy Mary Bridget Partridge, formerly Sister Libouri, against Dr. Dwyer, Roman Catholic Bishop of Wagga, to recover £5,000 damages for alleged malicious arrest, Mr. Justice Ferguson put three ?ue#tions to the jury. The following are he questions and the answers returned. 1. Did defendant take reasonable care to inform himself of the true facts of the case? —No. 2. Did he honestly believe the case he Jaid before the mr.pistrate?—No. 3. Was he actuated by malice? —Xo. The Judge intimated that the third would only become material if the jury failed to answer one or other of the first two questions in the affirmative. The jury, which numbered four, answered the first two questions by a majority of three to one, an<j the third question unanimously. The Judfre directed the jury, as they had replied "No" on the question of malice, to find a verdict for the defendant, whicli was done accordingly.