THE COSINGHAM DIVORCE CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11923, 22 December 1900, Page 8

THE COSINGHAM DIVORCE CASE.

DR O'HARAN'S EVIDENCE CON-

TINUED,

The Coningham divorce case, in which the Rev. Dr Denis Francis O'Haran, private secretary to Cardinal Moran, is named as co-respondent, and from whom £5000 i 3 claimed as damages, was continued at Sydney on the 9th inst., before Mr Justice Simpson. Although it was the sixth day of the trial, the attendance in court was as

large M over. After some liisoiHsion about the jury inspecting the places mentioned in respondent s evidence, Dr O'Haran, the co-respondent, took his seat in the witness-box, and was further cross-examined by tho petitioner. In compliance with a request of Mr Justice Simpson, tho co-respondent wrote lus initials on. a photo twice, drying them in one case and leaving the other untouched. Mr "Justice Simpson: It is a grossly improper thing, but communications continue to reach me in connection with this case. They are now beginning to come to my private residence. This morning two parcels came. On one of them I was informed a payment of eighteonpence was required, and on the other a shilling- J looked at them sufficiently to see that the first was I a book about "The Priest and the Woman, !or something of the sort. The other parcel was also with reference to the case. 01 course I sent them both back. I only wish I could find out anybody guilty of fending any of these communications at all. iwou'ci m:>lco example of him to such an extent, that there would be no fear of it occurring again. It is perfectly monstrous. I The Petitioner: I know of nobody who I is likely to bo responsible for such a thing. To Dr O'Haran: Can you produce any other photographs you have given at any j time to a lady?—l have given them, I am sure, but I cannot produce (hem. You say that you never saw the responi dent at all on the" evening of March li, ! 1899?— I did say so. j Why do you remember your actions on j that evening so distinctly?—l can remember ; them. Where wore you, then, at a quarter to 8 on the evening of March 20, 1899?— I do not know now. , These harps, are they given away, sole!, or what?—T have no responsibility in connection with them. Did yon give the respondent one?—l nelipvc I did You said that she took one?— She praelii rally took it, I Where was the harp?— Pinned on my coat. What did you say?—l cion't know that I said anything- . | You unpinned it, and gave it to her?— Did you not confess Mrs Coningham ?~ I was never asked to. Was it not because having committed a sin with her you were not allowed to.'— !*% You mnem°bcr all about the 29 th June, ; 1B93?—I remember distinctly all about my ' visit to Concord on that occasion. Father Tlyme, whom I saw on that niglit, was not my C°Do CSVou remember July 1, 1898?-! do'not exactly recall it. There is no circumstance by which I can reciill it. ! 'Your memory takes you bade to all those times and circumstances?—T have examined tho dates and hours mentioned in tins court, ' and T remember them distinctly. ! Did what was sworn to as having taken ' place on June 29 take place on July 1?— j No. | Mr Justice Simpson: Nor on any other ' date?— 'So, your Honor. The Petitioner: You remember July i, 1893?— I have no distinct recollection of July 3. .

Did anvlhing peeur that night that will serve you?—! don't recollect anything. Well, that was professional night?— Oil. I apologise. I remember everything on tbatnicflit. ■Well, eiin you tell me one circumstance that- occurred Hint night to enable you to swear that you were in that particular procession?— Yes. I. remember most distinctly there was a larger congregation than usual. Jt was the last Sunday in the o;>tholic Church for the annual holy communion. The congregations at both the morning and evening services were much larger than usual.

'flip Co-respondent then elated that since he had been served with the petition ho had had conversation about the cas" with Cardinal Morau, Father Cretan. Miss Hoiincssy. -Alt' Langton, Miss Shield?, and Miss Sutherland. He brfie.re.cl that lift receiver! two letters from the petitioner. It was not a fact that the respondent. Miss Hennery, and he liatl many a time, spoken together. He could not say how freou.ently the respondent had been at the. cathedral.' He had Riven particular .instructions thiit he did not want to see Mrs Coningham. The' Petitioner: Why did you do that?— I bad received a particular warning with rocard to her. Oh, I see. and owing to that particular warni"" you continued to be friendly with l,rr?--T was not friendly with her, nor un-

friendly. You gave her little presents?—l did not. Will you swear she never inaugurated the Passion Play?— Yes, she did.

And did you not introduce her to the Cardinal because she ha." done so?— She was D'esrnted io the Cardinal with others, and nothing else.

"Witness (continuing! stated that Miss Jlenncssy and Miss Sutherland had confessed to him since the c:ue commenced. Since he was 13 ail his studies were directed towards becoming a priest. The Petitioner: Durin.'; the whole of your life have you been absolutely pure and chaste?— That is a fair question, and I will ansnv-r.it. Yes, I have. Witness (continuing) stated that he had received several letters from the petitioner. These had been handed to his legal adviser, and at the same interview to Inspector-detec-tive Camphin. That was immediately after he received the petition.

Mr Justice Simpson remarked that it might be advisable that the letter of July 3, which it had been fiiijjgostcd w«.i bogus, should 1)0 placed in the hands of an exnert. He did not know whether the jury would think it

The Petitioner: I have no objection to that —none whatever. (To Dr O'Haran); Did not Miss Shields say to you thai, when she received her money she was going to advance Mrs Ooningham £4000 or £5000 to start a hotel, ami was going to live with h'cr?—Certainly not. Did you ever tell Mi*. Shields not to advance any money to M"rs C'oningham?—l told her not to pass her signature to any perse-:. Mr Justice Simpson : Did you tell her not to advance Mrs Coningham any moneyI.'— Yes; most undoubtedly. WOMKX OR LADIKS. The Petitioner: What have you done witli Mrs Coningham's photo?—l never knew I hud got her photo. ' Mr Justice Simpson : You must know whether you have got her photo or not?—l have not that I am aware of. You swear positively that you have not?— As far as I know. Mr .justice Sim.json: As far as you know! Do you know?—l certainly have no recollection whatever. The Petitioner: Did she not also present you with a picture painted by herself?— Certainly not. You adhere to the statement that she never gave you a. photograph of herself, and never had one taken especially for you?— Certainly not. T don't know what photograph she had taken. Did she over -Ava yon n photograph of herself?— Not that I know of. Mr Justice Simpson: Have you received I many photographs from women? —I have rcj ceived many photographs from ladies. I Mr Justice Simpson: 1 prefer the word I " women." All ladies are women, while all | women are not ladies. | Witness: 1 have received a number of photographs of women, whom I call ladies.. Mr Justice Simpson: Of course you are entitled to say that. I Witness (contiuuina) said ho got photo- ' o-taphs during the Australian fair from both Otholics. and non-Cutholics. The conversation he had on the telephone with the respondent took place after the petition was served. When he said he was sorry lie could not see her he used an ironical expression^ an ! expression understood liy all who knew l?ng- | lish. He had not been during the lost six months in the sacristy during processions. He never had any telephone code with the respondent. He never arranged with her that : if the boy said Pitt street Convent when she ! ran" up he would know it was Mrs Coningham. He had never been accused by one of the nuns or sifters of undue familiarity with ; a child, and had never told the respondent I so. 1 The Petitioner: In the event of the verdict ! of the jury going against you, would you | not be disrobed? Mr Justice Simpson: He cannot tell that • ! anything might, happen or might not. He . ! cannot possibly toll what will happen. It . ! might be so or it might be the reverse. It i i might be even that if the jury found a verdict ' in his favour the authorities of the church ; : would consider that he was not guiltless. No- > ; body can tell what they would think or what i they would do. i Witness said he could positively swear that > , ho had never waved his hand for the responb : dent not to follow him. She had never foll i lowed him out of the church between a •' quarter to 7-o'clock and half-past 8 o clock.

He never took the keys out of Langton's pockets whilo the latter was working about in his shirt sleeves.

The Petitioner: Is it not a fact that the church teaches that if a person who has committed sin receive absolution he can deny that sin on oath?— The assertion ■is absurd. I cannot answer it.

If a man hag committed sin, and been to confession and received absolution, can he not go into the witness-box and swear that he never committed sin?—lt is absurd, as I said.

Mr Justice Simpson: If you do gel absolution on Friday for sin which you committed on the previous Monday, is that sin obliterated—wiped out, and are you, after getting absolution, as guiltless a? if you had never committed the sin at all?— Certainly. The Petitioner (handing up a paper): Do you knew that name?— Yes. Two other names were written and handed up, and the witness said he did not know persons of these names. The Petitioner: Did you ever make any arrangement will) any of them for the support of an illegitimate child?— None whatever. „

Did you not give Father Barry instructions to marry the last-named to a man?— I don't know. Have you during the last 12 months advised a married woman to marry in her maiden name?—l never advised any person. Did you ever misconduct., yourself with one of those whose'names you have there?— Never. Were you ever blackmailed by one of those whose names you have there for. the support of a child?— Never. Are you now paying for the support of an illegitimate child?— Certainly not. You swear that at no time from March 3 inclusive to the end of September did you misconduct yourself with the respondent?—l novel misconducted myself \\\'th

her. Did you not promise her that if she allowed you to misconduct yourself you would give your church up for her?— Never. Witness (continuing) had no recollection of making an appointment with the petitioner at the telephone in October or November last. Kelly, who was now dead, never told him that he had given the petitioner the medal which he found upstairs in the Cardinal's Hall belonging to the respondent. Kelly never told him that he had told the petitioner. A uumbov of other questions were put as" to alleged meetings with the respondent, and the replies were all in the negative. The Petitioner: Did you ever send messages by another lady to the respondent?— I don't know if 1 have done so, and I do not recall it. "Will you swear that you did not know ot her illness of July 3, 1t93? —I recall nothing of it. " Did you not send a message by a lady friend time after time, asking to convey your regrets to the. respondent that she was sufferin" from a revere illness?—l know nothing of

Did not that lady say to you, "Why don t you go out and see Mrs Coningham "? and you raid, "lam afraid of her husband"?— I never heard it before.

Did' you not got two telephone messages on March 17, 1899, from her! —I remember no telephone message whatever. Mr Justice Simpson: Can you swear you got no message from her on that day?—l can swear thai lam not conscious of it. I don t believe 1 got any messages from her on that date. T gave instructions that she was not to be admitted alone to the presbytery. The Petitioner: Why did you give those instructions?— Because t had received written information and warnings with regard to Mrs Coningham. Mr Justice Simpson: Do you mean you received certain warnings, and you gave instructions after the Passion Play?— Yes, your Honor. The Petitioner : Did you receive these warnings in writing?—! certainly received them verbally, not in writing 1 do not. believe

there are any in writing. This concluded the cross-examination of the co-respondent. He was then re-examined, and stated that he had never met the respondent till 1897. He repeated what he had said with reference to confession aud absolution, and said it was easy for anyone to ascertain when the priests went into retreat and other matters connected with festivals. Angela Johnatono gave evidence confirmatory of that given by the co-respondent as to his being present at a family feast in Concord on the night of .Tune 29, 1898. He ranw will) Father Byrne about 8 o'clock, and left between half-past 9 and 10 o'clock. To the Petitioner: On June 29. 1897, the corespondent was at the same house, but arrived in time for dinner at hilf-past 6 oCock. She had not compared notes with anybody about the matter. Mary Hollingdale and Mary Ahearno gave corroborative evidence. John Baxter, inspector of customs, staled that he met Dr O'Haran at the presbytery at Concord one evening, but he could not say for certain in what month. He was joined by lather Byrne, who excused himself to witness, as he said he lipd to go with Dr O'Haran to a family party at Parramatta road. This was, judging by the time witness would have dinner and leave home, as near as possible

half-past 7. In cross-examination. Witness said he remembered the occasion as being one on which there was a birthday party at Mrs Atock s. He could not swear as to the mouth. This was the only evening on which he remembered meeting Dr OH ».in at the presbytery at Concord.

The R"V Peter Byrne, parish priest at Burwoocl. stated that'on Juno 29, 1898. corespondent arrived at the presbytery at Concord shortly before 6 o'clock. They had tea, and then had a short chat. Mr Baxter called about half-past 7 o'clock. Then Dr O'Haran and witness left for Wimbledon, where they arrivecf about 8 o'clock. In cross-examination, Witness said that he fixed that date as June 29, because it was Mrs Aiock's birthday, and it, was also his own feast day—the toast of St. Peter and fat. Paul. Dr O'Haran spoke to him about the 'case on the Saturday previous to its opening. Ho then asked witness whether he remembered Mrs Atock's feast clay. The jury had certain portions of the evidence read over to them, and. after the court adjourned, proceeded to make an inspection of the Cathedral Buildings and grounds.