THE ESCAPED NUN

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 246, 12 July 1921, Page 5

THE ESCAPED NUN

CLAIM AGAINST BISHOP DWYER CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE By Telegraph—Trees Association-Copyright. (Rec. July 11, 10.25 p.m.) Sydney, July 11. The case in which Bridget Mary Partridge (formerly Sister Ligouri) is suing Joseph Wilfred Dwyer, Roman Catholic Bishop of Wagga, for JCSOOO damages for alleged malicious arrest, was continued to-day. Dr. Leahy gave evidence that he was of opinion that Sister Ligouri loft the convent because of delusion or fear. She was suffering from chronic constipation, of which complaint delusions formed an important sympton. James Sheehy, a solicitor practising at Wagga, said ho advised the Bishop to bring tho matter of Sister Ligouri’s departure to' Sydney and to see the Inspec-tor-General of Police, as the latter would have more resources than the local police. This concluded the evidence, and counsel for tho defence, before commencing his address to the jury, asked the judge either to direct tho jury to find for the defendant or else to enter a verdict for the defendant without reference to the jury, on the ground of his earlier application.

Tho Judge declined to decide the matter himself, and decided to leave to the jury tho questions already enumerated. Counsel for tho defendant then entered upon his address to the jury.—Press Assn. [When the hearing of evidence for the plaintiff was concluded, counsel for defendant applied for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff had entirely failed to establish the essentials of her case. Plaintiff must fail, he argued, unless she produced evidence that the information under which she was arrested was wilfully false. Tn the course of exhaustive argument, counsel for the defence stated that the only purpose the Bishop had in obtaining an order for her arrest was to have the question of plaintiff’s sanity established one way or the other. No other course was onen to him. owing to the secrecy maintained as to her whereabouts. Counsel emphasised the point that it was quite immaterial to his case that plaintiff was in fact sane, as it. was quite irrelevant to the determination of tho question whether or not the Bishop had a reasonable cause to think otherwise. The Judge refused a nonsuit, stating that he preferred to. take tho opinion of the jury.]