THE LIGOURI CASE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 244, 9 July 1921, Page 7

THE LIGOURI CASE

BISHOP DWYER NOT AFRAID OF DISCLOSURES EVIDENCE OF THE MOTHER SUPERIOR By Telegraph—Pra«« Association -Copyright (R-eo. July 8, 11.5 p.m.) , Sydney, July 3. At the hearing of the ease in which Miss Partridge claims damages from Bishop Dwyer, defendant, in his evidence, said that he had received a letter from Sister Ligouri, explaining how she left the convent, and expressing a wish, to see him. He. wrote a reply, expressing regret at the course Sister Ligouri had taken before consulting him, and saying that he was willing to see her. The letter, however, was not delivered to '.Sister Ligouri, as her whereabouts then was unknown.

Bishop Dwyer explained that he took subsequent action regarding Sister Ligouri after - securing an opinion from Dr. Leahy, who had attended her at the convent, that Sister Ligouri was deranged in. her mind. The Bishop then came to Sydney, where, in reply to inquiries made in official quarters, he received a letter, from tho Inspector-General of Police, stating that the police inspector at Wagga and Dr. Tivey, who examined Sister Ligouri, had reported that they could find no traces of insanity, and that she refused to return to tho convent. Her whereabouts then was unknown.

At this stage an affidavit by Dr. Leahy was prpduced, expressing the opinion that Sister Ligouri was of unsound mind, and should be placed under proper care and control.

Bishop Dwyer explained how he secured the issue of the warrant after consult-, ing the Solicitor-General’s Department and the Chamber Magistrate, and detailed the circumstances of the case. In cross-examination. Bishop Dwyer was asked if he had told the Court all he knew without mental reservations, and said. “Yes.” Prees.ed on the doctrine of mental reservations, he declared that he did not know one could properly mentally reserve in a Court of Justice on oath. A lie on oath waa perjury. It transpired that an application for a warrant, made at Wagga on the grounds of . Sister Ligouri’s insanity, was refused, but Bishop Dwyer did not inform the Sydney authorities of that fact when applying for the warrant there. Asked why. he replied, "They did not ask me.’ . - Asked if he took action because he was afraid that Sister Ligouri would make disclosures. Bishop Dwyer said he was not afraid as to anything she could disclose.-

■ The Mother Superior of Wagga Convent gave evidence that Sister Ligouri’s duties were not arduous or laborious, as had been alleged. Plaintiff had complained greatly of sleeplessness and headaches. Three days before her escape she was greatly excited and apparently unhinged. On the morning of her escape she complained of headache. When she' came back after escaping she told witness that she was vorry for what she done. Witness denied striding or reprimanding Sister Ligouri in any way for her action, andrin reply to a question. Sister Ligouri said everybody in the convent had been very kind to her, but certain things had worried her. Witness said there was no difficulty about a sister leaving the convent if she were dissatisfied. Her wishes would be conveyed to the Bishop, who would do everything necessary. Sister Ligouri knew this. The Mother Superior smilingly denied any- intention of murdering Sister Ligouri. She added that the worst consequences of plaintiff’s leaving the convent without permission would be that she would be compelled to leave the community, but her future would be provided for. There was riot the slightest ground for the expressed fear of plaintiff that she would be compulsorily taken back to the convent. Dr. Leahy gave evidence that he. had known Sister Ligouri since Wl5. He thought she was a neurasthenic. She was highly strung and suffered from insomnia. When she first left the convent he was of opinion that she was suffering from delusions, and was of unsound .mind, and had run away while so suffering.—Press Assn.