BISHOP SUED

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 130, 3 June 1932, Page 9

BISHOP SUED

MONEY FOR A CHURCH

QUESTION OF AUTHORITY

DECISION RESERVED

The trial was concluded in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon of the case in which Thomas Campbell, aged 78, a retired farmer, claimed £3500 and interest from Dr. James M. Liston, Boman Catholic Bishop of the Auckland Diocese. Mr. Justice Mac- .'•; Gregor reserved his decision. It was claimed that the money was ■borrowed by Father D. H. Campbell, son of the plaintiff, for the purpose of erecting a Roman Catholic Church at Whangarei. The defence denied that authority had been given by the then Bishop of Auckland, the late Dr. Cleary, to borrow the money. The evidence was completed just before "The Post" went to press. Legal argument was then hoard. "VEILED CHARGES." Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that what Father Campbell did or did not do as parish priest at Whangarei "was quite irrelevant to the plaintiff's rights. So far as the attack on Father Campbell was concerned, it consisted of veiled charges and accusations. No cvi- ', dence had been brought whatever to ' substantiate the charge of misappropriation of moneys. In spite of the accusations and veiled charges, Father Campbell's evidence that tho whole of the plaintiff's money was properly applied in and about the building of the church and the acquisition of the land was uncontradicted by other evidence, and his evidence that he properly applied all the other funds of the church similarly was uncontradicted. But, if the plaintiff's evidence proved the major propositions that had been put before.the ; Court, a consideration of whether Father Campbell properly applied the moneys or not was irrelevant 'to the plaintiff's case. The third party, • it was submitted, was not responsible for the subsequent application of; the moneys by the agent of the principal. It (•was submitted that there had been the uncdifying spectacle of bishop .' and priest washing their dirty linen, in Court. ■"..-.'. A DEETICnaXT QUESTION. His Honour Mr. Justice MacGregor said he was quite satisfied the money •was lent and that it was applied for church purposes. The difficult problem was the question of authority. On the question of authority, counsel said he relied upon two main grounds. The first was, that the priest was hejd out as the agent of the Bishop for the purpose of building the church and arranging the finance. The second ground was the uncontradicted evidence as to express authority to borrow money to iinaneo tho building of Ithe church. Counsel said ho did not suggest, and had never suggested, that there was direct authority from the bishop to borrow from' the Campbell - familyi He did submit, however, that -: there was express authority from the bishop to proceed with the financial arrangements in whatever way Father Campbell chose; that it was a very ■wide, a very general, authority x tlie late _,Bishop Cleary gave to tho priest to proceed. Beplying, and dealing more particularly with the question of express authority, counsel for the defendant submitted that the facts wore entirely inconsistent with Father Campbell's evidence as to what happened ,at the interviews with the late Bishop'Cleary; '< ,