PARISH CHURCH

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 179, 1 August 1932, Page 8

PARISH CHURCH

THE WHANGAREI CASE COMMENT BY "THE MONTH." BISHOP LISTON'S LETTER. The current issue of The Month, the Roman Catholic organ, contains reference to what is known as the Whangarei Parish Supreme Court case, in which T. Campbell, a retired farmer, of Wellington, unsuccessfully sought Io recover from. Bishop Liston, Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland, £3SOU for money allegedly lent, with interest thereon at. 5$ per cent., for the erection of a church at Whangarci.

The decision of the presiding judge is reproduced in full, with the exception of the concluding paragraph, concerning which the following editorial note appears: “We have omitted the concluding paragraph of the judgment. If any of our readers have been disturbed in their minds by the terms of that paragraph, as reported in the daily Press, we would refer them to the Bishop’s dignified statement on the point as given in this issue (of The Month), and with all due respect to the judge’s official position we record our emphatic dissent from his remarks in that connection.’’ The Bishop’s Letter. Continuing, The Month states: The following letter form his Lordship the Bishop was sent during the month to the parish priest and people of Whangarei: “I desire to felicitate you on the issue of the recent event that has caused you so much anxiety. It was your interests that the Bishop was bound to safeguard, even as it was his duty to uphold an important principle.

“Aly course of action was made simple because of the attitude taken up by the late Bishop, and every investigation that I made personally during the past two years into this matter strengthened my conviction that his decision was the proper one and that no moral obligation of restitution fell on your conscience or mine.

“I am sure that, even without the specific disclaimer to oe mentioned, your good sense will tell you not to be disturbed by the concluding comments of the presiding judge; they were such as to occasion most respectful astonishment. You do not need my assurance that your Bishop acted throughout with the gravest sense of responsibility. I will only add in fairness to Rev. Father Herring, the soul of honour, and to my legal advisers, of whose ability and prudent judgment I cannot speak too highly, that no charges of misappropriation wen) made, that my counsel in Court, in reply to an interjection by the learned judge himself, emphatically and specifically disclaimed the making of any such charges, that questions were asked, and most properly asked, as to tho use made of certain parochial moneys, and that the witness was asked these questions with the perfect courtesy due to his dignity. “Now that the issue has been decided I know you will turn from this anxiety and give yourselves with courage and earnestness and loyalty to the ordinary works of the parish and the big task of clearing off tho debt of £5OOO. Under Father Herring’s able guidance you have done excellent work during the past three years, and 1 know you will continue to make sacrifices in a spirit of great good will for your parish. I beg to assure you of whatever help I am able to give.”

Judge’s Comments. The concluding paragraph of the judgment, which The Month omitted from its reproduction, was telegraphed from Wellington as follows:—With the ethical aspect of the problems involved in the case he (the judge) was not concerned. Ho was of the opinion that he should not allow costs to the successful defendant. “I have, of course, arrived at that conclusion for a reason connected with, the case,” said His Honour. “That reason is that, during the progress of the trial, charges of insinuation were persistently made on behalf of the defence against Father Campbell, the leading witness for plaintiff, that he had in some way misappropriated certain of the parish funds, and, in particular, one sum of about £lOOO, which it was found impossible to trace in the parish books. I am satisfied from tho evidence that these charges were unfounded, and should not have been made. There was no real affirmative evidence in support of them, and Father Campbell himself categorically denied them. Further, I think they must, 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 of the parish funds. It is incredible that a priest who was known, or reasonably suspected, to be guilty of such an offence would be allowed to retain his position in the church For those reasons I do not allow any costs to defendant.”