A LOAN OF £3500.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20563, 3 June 1932, Page 13

A LOAN OF £3500.

ACTION FOR RECOVERY. COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT. (raxss ASSOCIATION TSLSOSAX.) WELLINGTON, June 2. In his defence in the case in which Thomas Campbell is seeking the recovery of £3500 from the Boman Catholic Church in tho Auckland Diocese, Bishop Liston quoted from Canon Law Decree 180: "Since unhappy experience proves that some priests, either by negligence, or too much haste, or for the sake of enriching their relatives, burden themselves seriously with debts to the great detriment of their neighbour and the scandal of the faithful, we prohibit in future any parish priest from knowingly burdening himself with a debt of more than £3O without express permission of the Bishop given in writing. We prohibit, moreover, any priests whatever from contracting" debts in the name of the Church, or for the Bake of the Church, without permission given in writing." Another Canon stated that the priest who did receive moneys on loan, or deposit, without the written permission of the Bishop, was bound to make it clear to the lenders that the Bishop of the diocese had contracted no obligation whatever to meet these debts. Bishop Liston said that Bishop Cleary was most careful to conform to Canon Law, and he could not imagine him giving loose permission to borrow money. Other Evidence. Father Henry Joseph Herring, who succeeded Father Campbell as parish priest at Whangarei, said that when ne took over tho parish the books were not handed to him. They were taken away by Father Campbell to be written up. but they were not complete when returned. If a satisfactory account was rendered of all the moneys received by Father Campbell in connexion with the building of the new church he would bo prepared to place the position before his parishioners. Beplying to counsel for plaintiff, Father Herring said he had formulated no specific charge against Father Campbell. Counsel: As a matter of fact you are the source of these charges against Father Campbell?—Source! I think he is the source himself. If the land and buildings cost £13,500, there is no foundation for any of your accusations and clip-ryes is there?—lt seems to me that that beys the whole question. Mr Justice MacGregor: Oh, tiy and be frank, Father Herring. Counsel for plaintiff asked witness to try and answer a simple question directly, and not to try and dodge. After counsel had referred to various figures, Father Herring said he realised that over £13,300 was accounted for. Counsel: And the whole of the charges against Father Campbell go if that is so? He couldn't conjure money from the four winds of heaven?—l fail to see the consequence. Beplying to another question, Father Herring said he had no proof that Father Campbell had "embezzled" money. Dr. David Kennedy, Provincial of the Marist Order in New Zealand, produced a copy of a letter from Father Campbell to him. It was dated May 24th, 1931. He did not know where the original was. It had been misplaced in some way. Beplying to counsel for plaintiff, witness said it was his opinion that if the money had been paid ;*iito the church funds it should be repaid, to Mr Campbell. In answer to counsel for the defence, Dr. Kennedy said he considered- it : was the obligation of the parish to pay <b*ek the money, and as the church property Was vested in the Bishop he understood the Bishop was responsible. Submissions by Counsel. Counsel for defendant said the Chureh was prepared to admit liability for the debt if it was satisfied the parish accounts were in order. There appeared to be £2500 unaccounted for. Other irregularities werfe apparent. The Bishop, as well as being governed by Canon Law, was also governed! by the law of the country. It was impossible for the Bishop to admit the liability of the Church for a debt not legally incurred. Action should have been taken against the parish, not the Bishop. Counsel discussed the inadmissability of the letters of Bishop Cleary to Father Campbell. Counsel for plaintiff said if the arguments of liis learned friend were sound then this unfortunate man had no hope of recovering the £3500 he had lent to the Church. The parish had no soul, while all the assets and funds of the parish were vested in the Bishop. The question of what Father Campbell might have done or did not do while parish priest at Whangarei did not affect plaintiff's rights. While insinuations and veiled charges had been brought against Father Campbell, ao evidence had been tendered to prove that he mishandled or misappropriated the funds of the parish. The sorry spectacle had been witnessed of a Bishop and priest washing their dirty linen in Court on subjects which had nothing whatever to do with the case. His Honour said he would take time to consider his judgment.