THE CONINGHAM DIVORCE CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11924, 24 December 1900, Page 5

THE CONINGHAM DIVORCE CASE.

THE JUEY UNABLE TO AGREE.

After the principals in the Ooningliam divorce case, in which the Rev. Francis Denis O'Haran, private secretary to Cardinal Moran, was co-respondent, and from whom £5000 was claimed as damages, had given their evidence the public interest in the case largely

subsided. There was a marked falling-off in the attendance outsido the court, and the display of feeling which was conspicuous during the first few days of the trial disappeared. On Tuesday, 11th inst., evidence was given corroborative of Dr O'llaran's testimony as to his presence at the St. Patrick's Day concert in the Town Hall. Kvidence was also given as to Mrsl Coningliam's life in Brisbane, and as to her passing herself off as a Mrs Kogers. A Mrs .Mary Gorman deposed that men used almost constantly to go in and out of the house where Mrs Ooningham was living. Witness had turned the respondent out of her house. She admitted she had been lined for using indecent, language to respondent. • Corroborative- evidence was given as to Dr O'Havan never having been late in taking part in the processions at St. Mary's during 1898 and 18S9.

On Wednesday, 12lh in-st., a little evidence, mostly of a corroborative nature, or clearing up points which had arisen during tile case, was given. Mr Want, for the co-respondent, commenced his address to the jury, and concluded it on Thursday morning. The petitioner then addressed'the jury.' Mr Justice Simpson concluded his summing up on Friday morning. The issue, he slid, was. Did the jury believe the respondent or Dr O'Haran? If they believed her then they would give, a verdict for the petitioner. If they believed Dr O'Haran.'they would find a verdict in his favour. If, however, they found for the petitioner, they would have to consider the question of damages, and in determining to what damages the petitioner was entitled the jury must remember thai they were not there in any way to punish the co-respondent.

At nearly 11 o'clock on Friday night the jury, on entering the court, stated that they had only been ablo to agree on the first issue— namely, whether the petitioner and respondent were inaried on March 11, 1893. His Honor: You have not agreed as to the second', third, or fourth issues?

The Foreman: No. His Honor: Not even by a three-fourths majority—that is nine to three?

The Foreman: No. His Honor: Arc you likely to, if you deliberate ii little longer? The I'oreman : I don't think so. I may say that there is no possibility of our agreeing. His Honor: Ido not wish in the slightest degree to bring any pressure to bear upon you, but X think it is a matter of regret that you are not able to agree, even by a- majority. However, you cannot.

The Foreman: I don't think there is the slightest possibility.

His Honor: That being so, I understand thai you, Mr Want, and you, Mr Coningham, have agreed to consider the jury as having deliberated for 12 hours?

Mr Want intimated that they had agreed upon that course, as be understood some of the jury desired to catch trains, and1 it was for the convenience of the jury and others. It only required 20 minutes for the full 12 hours, and they might just as well let them go. Ho had asked Mr Coningham if he had any objection to this being done, and he had told him no.

His Honor (to petitioner): Is that so? Petitioner: Yes, your Honor. His Honor: We will take it, then, as if they had been siitinfr for tho full 12 hours.

His Honor (to tho jury): All I can do now, gentlemen, is to discharge you, and I am very sorry that you have boon kept so long. I thank you very much for your attendance, and for the attention you have given to the case.

Tho jury, through the foreman, thanked !>is Honor (or the kindness and attention shown to them during; tho trial, and, after some di?ni.=sion as to the exhibits, etc.. the court adjourned, and Urns ended what is likely In bo a historic case.