VERDICT FOR BISHOP

Pahiatua Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12084, 30 June 1932, Page 4

VERDICT FOR BISHOP

WHANGAREI CHURCH CASE PRIEST NOT AN AGENT. Judgment in favour of Dr. James Liston, Roman Catholic Bishop ot Auckland, was gi\ en by Mr Justice MacGregor, in tl e Welling! m Supreme Court yesterday, in the case brought by Thomas Camp I i., retired farmer, of Karon, claiming £3500 said to have been r. fi aimed on mortgage. “The £3500 eras !x>rrowed by Father Campbell, without! any reference to the Bishop, but no doubt on behalf of the parish,” said His Honour. “It has in the result been applied for the benefit of the parish, but certainly not in paying legal debts or obligations of tlie Bishop either past or present.” The money was loaned to Father Campbell, a son of plaintiff, who is not a Catholic. In His Honour’s judgment the circumstances o the ioan for the purposes of building a new 7 church at Whangarei are reviewed. “The money was to be repayable on demand, and was to bear interest meantime at 5£ per cent.,” continued Honour. “No mortgage or otiler” legal document was executed, nor was any specific security even suggested, but a cheque for £SOO was duly s uit by the plaintiff to Father Campbell on September 24, 1926. A cheque for a further sum of £IOOO was :nr warded by the plaintiff to Father Campbell on February 24, 1927, and a final cheque foy £2OOO on November 1, 1928. All these sums were advanced on identical terms: as to repayment and interest. “The three cheques, amounting in all to £3500, were duly received by- Father Campbell, and paid by him into the banking account of the Whangarei parish, which was then under his control as parish priest. The proceeds of these three cheques appear subsequently to have been devoted in or toward tho erection of a new church at Whangarei. No part of the £3500 has oeen paid hack to the plaintiff who has duly demanded repayment thereof. The present action has accordingly been brought against the defendant, ‘sued in his capacity as bisliop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Auckland.’ - MOST UNBUSINESSLIKE TRANSACTION. “It lias been established by the evidence adduced that the plaintiff did advance the principal amounts claimed to the parish priest at Whangarei on loan at of per cent, interest for or toward the purpose of erecting a new Roman Catholic Church at Whangarei. But the plaintiff must prove more than this, in order to succeed in his present action. He must next prove that his son, the parish priest at Whangarei, in negotiating this loan, did so while ‘acting as the agent of and with the authority of the Bishop of the Auckland Diocese’— at that time Dr. Cleary, since deceased.

“Had Father Campbell any authority, real or ostensible, from Bishop Cleary to negotiate this particular loan of £3500 on his behalf ? After considering the evidence with care, I feel bound to say that in my opinion it has not been proved that in the transaction in question Father Campbell was acting as the agent of or with the authority of the then Bishop of the Auckland Diocese. UNFOUNDED INSINUATIONS.

“In the present- ease,” proceeded His Honour, “I have come to tho conclusion that I should not allow costs to the successful defendant. 1 have, of course, arrived at that conclusion for a ‘reason connected with the case.’ That reason is that during the progress ot the trial charges or insinuations were persistently 7 made on behalf of the defence against Father Campbell, tho leading witness for plaintiff, that he had in some way misappropriated certain of the parish funds, and in particular one sum of about £IOOO, which it was found impossible to trace in the parish books. I' am satisfied from the evidence that these charges were unfounded, and should not have been made. There was no real affirmative evidence in support of them, and Father Campl>ell himself categorically denied them. Further, I think they m ist or should have been known by the defendant and his advisers to be unfounded.

“Father Campbell remains a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, and is still in the employment of that church as assistant parish priest at Blenheim. It is admitted that no charge has ever been made against him by his ecclesiastical superiors in respect of the suggested misappropriation ot parish funds. It is incredible th c a priest who was known, or reaso iably suspected, to be guilty of sue'i an ofienoe would be allowed to retain his position in the church. For these reasons T do not allow any coits to the defendant.”