EX-SISTER LIGOURI

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18293, 9 July 1921, Page 10

EX-SISTER LIGOURI

STORY OF THE ARREST.

BISHOP DWYER’S EVIDENCE

Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. SYDNEY, July 8. Bishop Dwyer, of Wagga, gave evidence that he received a letter from Sister Ligouri explaining a wish to see him. He wrote in reply expressing regret at the course Sister Ligouri had taken before consulting him, and saying that he was willing to see her. This letter, however, was not delivered to Sister Ligouri, as her whereabouts was then unknown. Bishop Dwyer explained that he took subsequent action regarding Sister Ligouri after securing an opinion from Dr Leahy, who had attended her at the convent, to the effect that the sister was derangea in her mind. The bishop then came to Sydney, where, in reply to inquiries made in official quarters, he received a letter from the Inspector-General of Police stating that the police inspector at Wagga and Dr Tivoy, who examined hor, reported that they could find no traces of insanity, and that she refused to return to the convent. Her whereabouts was then unknown.

At this stage an affidavit by Dr Leahy was produced, expressing the opinion that Sister Ligouri was of unsound mind, and should be placed under proper care and control.

Bishop Dwyer then explained how he had secured the issue of a warrant after consulting the Ko’icitor-Gcneral’s Department and Mr Chambers, a magistrate, detailing the circumstances of the case.

In cross-examination Bishon Dwyer was asked if he had told the Court all he knew, without any mental reservations. He said “3 cs.” Pressed on the doctrine of mental reservations, he declared that he did not know one could properly make mental reservations in a Court of* justice on oath—c, lie on oath was perjury. It transpired that the application' for a warrant v hich was made at Wagga on the grounds of Sister Ligouri’s insanity was refused, but Bishop Dwyer did not inform the Sydney authorities of this when applying for a warrant there. Asked why, lie replied; “They did not ask me.’’ •Asked if he took action because he was afraid Sister Ligouri might make disclosures, Bishop Dwyer said he was not afraid as to anything she could disclose.

MOTHER SUPERIOR’S EVIDENCE. SYDNEY, July 8. (Received July 8, at 9.30 p.m.) . The Mother Superior of tjie Wagga, Convent gave evidence that Sister Ligouri’s duties were not arduous or laborious as had been alleged. Plaintiff had comcomplaiued greatly of sleeplessness and headaches. For three days before her escape she was greatly, excited, and her mind was apparently unhinged, and on the morning of her escape she complained of headache. When she came back after escaping, she told witness that she was sorry for what she had done. Witness denied scolding or reprimanding Sister Ligouri in any way for her action, and in reply to a question .Sifiler Ligonri said that everybody in the convent had been very kind to her, but certain things had worried her. Witness said there was no difficulty about a sister leaving the convent if dissatisfied. Her wishes would be conveyed to the Bishop who would do everything necessary. Sister Ligouri knew this.

(Received July 8, at 11.5 p. m .) The Mother Superior smilingly denied having had any intention of murdering Sister Ligouri. She added that the worst consequences of plaintiff’s leaving the convent without permission would be that she would be compelled to leave the community, but her future would be provided for. There was not the slightest ground for the expressed fear of plaintiff that she would tie compulsorily taken back to the convent.

Dr Leahy gave evidence that he had known Sister Ligouri since 1915. He thought she was neurasthenic. She was ruing and suffered from insomnia v\ hen she first left the convent he was of opinion that she was suffering from delusions, that she was of unsound mind, and that she had run away while so suffering.