LIGOURI CASE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIV, 14 July 1921, Page 5

LIGOURI CASE

JUDGE'S SUMMING UF

(By Electric Telegraph —Copyright.) (Australian & A.Z. (able Association.)

SYDNEY, duly 13.

In lliu Ligouri case counsel lor plaintiff. coiiuiiuing his address to ihu jury, said (ho bishop had shown himself an arrogant, proud man who would not brook opposition, and Ids action in issuing a warrant showed that lie bad bad bis own way in the community, and ho mean! to have it. Referring to the fart that the bishop had not applied fo .Archdeacon Bike, of Wagga, who knew Sister Ligouri's whereabouts, counsel said this was not because the bishop tliougl.it (he information would be refused, but because sectarianism had

Minded his reason and judgment. In obtaining (In' warrant the bishop swore recklessly that he believed Sister Cigouri was in (he hands of Orangemen, and if lie believed that he knew she was being supported ; yet he swore she was without lawful means of support. Counsel concluded an address of four hours’ duration by submitting that, arrogance in this ease had driven the Bishop to his downfall. Judge Ferguson. in summing ujj, stressed the fact that there was no question of religion in the ease, the issues before the jury involving no sectarian question whatever. Unfortunately. however, it was impossible to hide the fact that there had been sectarianism involved in tbc case. Questions were asked tending to bring in for consideration the propriety of the Convent system. The Waggo Convent undoubtedly had been put upon its defence to some extent, but for any inquiry into the Convent system this was not an appropriate tribunal. He would bo very sorry to bo called upon to enter into such an enquiry as he was sure that if he did he would be unable to get away irom his pre-con-eeived views, which were entirely the result of his Protestant upbringing. His Honour continued that a good deal of morbid interest had arisen in the case from' the suggestion that plaintiff had been subjected to gross ill-treat-ment. hut the whole evidence, including her own, disproved tin’s. Whatever the jury's verdict might he, no fair-minded mail, no Protestant, however bigoted, could hut rejoice that these imputations had been conflicted.

The Judge then dealt with incidents preceding the plaintiff’s departure from the Convent, saying she obviously misunderstood the sisters’ ministrations, which had a sinister meaning to her. Regarding the Thompsons, to whom Sister Ligouri went when she loft the. Convent, His Honour said it was very unfortunate for her that she had not gone to somebody who possessed a little, common horse sense. If they believed the plaintiffs story about attempted murder their obvious duty was to inform the police. They, however, formed the opinion that the only way to protect tiie girl was to seek the’ protection of the Orange Lodge. “I don’t think so,” added His Honour, and if the police had been informed there would have been no need to appeal to Protestant justice, nor for the employment of the . melodramatic methods of a picture show.” Dealing with plaintiffs disappearing from the Convent, the judge said the bishop swore the information after making inquiries, and what plaintiff had to prove was that the information was sworn without reasonable cause and with malice. He then repeated the reasons for refusing a nonsuit, and put three questions to the jury—(l) Did defendant take reasonable care to inform himself of the true facts of the case; {2\ did ho honestly believe the case ho laid before the magistrate; and (3) (which only became material if they failed to answer one or the other of the first two questions), was he actuated by malice. Stating that they had now come to the real caso His Honour reviewed the evidence on this aspect and described the law thereon. The jury then retired. ’

VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT

SYDNEY, July 13,

In the Ligouri case, the Judge returned to tiie Court after the six hours allowed for the* jury's retirement. In answer to the usual question, the foreman said they had not agreed upon a verdict, but to a certain degree had arrived at a majority verdict. His Honour informed him taut if three jurymen were unanimous he would take that verdict.

The jury again retired, aud a few minutes later returned. Tho foreman asked, assuming that they agreed on a verdict upon the first two questions, was it necessary to give an answer "yes” or "no” on the third question. *Fiis Honour intimated that ho would take a majority verdict on each of tlic three questions. The jury again retired and at 9.45 returned and the foreman handed the Judge a paper with the answer "no” to each question. Counsel for defendant then asked for a verdict for tho defendant; aud counsel for plaintiff asked His Honour to return a verdict for plaintiff and assess damages. The Judge then tho jury, that as they replied "no” on tho question of malice, to find a verdict for defendant.

The jury thereupon retained a verdict for defendant by direction. Large crowds waited hours outside the court and loudly cheered the verdict.

STAY OF .PROCEEDINGS GRANTED SYDNEY, This Day. In the Ligouri ease the jury answered tho first two questions by a majority of three tu one, ami the third question unanimously. Air Justice Ferguson grunted an application by counsel for plaintiff for a stay of proceedings.