EX-NUN’S CLAIM

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10950, 12 July 1921, Page 5

EX-NUN’S CLAIM

EVIDENCE CONCLUDED JUDGE INSISTS ON MATTER GOING TO JURY. COUNSELS’ ADDRESSES. Bv Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received Julv 11. 10 25 p.m.) SYDNEY, July 11. The case in which Bridget Partridge Gate Sister Ligouri) is claiming £SOOO damages from Bishop Dwyer, of Wagga Wagga, for alleged malicious arrest, was continued. Dr. Leahy gave evidence that he was of the opinion that Sister I.igouri left the convent because of a delusion or fear that she was suffering from chronic constipation, of which complaint the delusions formed an important system. James Sheehy, a solicitor, practising at Wagga Wagga, said he advised the bishop to bring €hc matter of Sister Ligouri’s departure to Sydney and see the Inspector-General of Police, as the (after would have more resources than the local police. ~ .This concluded the evidence, and counsel for the defence, before commencing his addrbss to the jury, asked the judge either to direct the jury to find for defendant, or else enter a verdict for the defendant. Without reference to the jury on the grounds of the application (recently cabled). The- judge declined to decide the matter himself, and decided to leave to the jury the questions already enumerated. Counsel for the defendant then entered upon his address to the jury. When the case for the plaintiff concluded some days ago counsel for the defendant applied for a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had entirely failed to establish the essentials of her case. Plaintiff, he said, must fail unless she produced evidence that the information under which she was arrested was wilfully false. In the course of exhaustive argument, counsel for the defence stated that tho only purpose the bishop had in obtaining tho order for her arrest was to have the question of plaintiff’s sanity established one way or the other. No other coarse was open 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 the question whether or not the bishop had reasonable cause to think her otherwise. At the conclusion the judge refused a nonsuit, stating that lie preferred to take the opinion of the jury, and adding that if he were wrong it .would be possible for the court to determine the mattesr without putting the par'ties to further expense.