O'FARRELL'S CLAIM.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume X, Issue 492, 15 September 1882, Page 19

O'FARRELL'S CLAIM.

(Prom the Advocate.) As the enmity of the unfortunate mm O'Farrell to the ArcbbisboD w **. 9°9 °;; [ nt ense and ungovernable as to impel him to attempt the life of his Grace, it may be well to mention the only cause there is for it and at the same time, explain the preposterous nature of this reckless man s claims. Situated as he is now, we have no wish to say of him anything unnecessarily harsh, but we have to mention that he fled from Victoria in 1863 to escape the wrath of his creditors. Whilemakmg preparations for his departure, or waiting for a favourable opportunity of effecting it safely, it was necessary that he should conceal himself from the officers of law, and iv these straits he applied to the Most Rev. Dr. Goold for permission to hide in St. Francis' Presbytery. In making this application O'Farrell acknowledged that he was indebted to his Lordship, regretted that he could not settle accounts with him, and thanked him for much kindness and help he had received at his hands. But Dr. Goold could not comply with such a request, and did not ; and the refusal turned O'Farrell into a bitter enemy, though he had but a day or two previously acknowledged, with every appearance of gratitude, his pecuniary indebtedness and other obligations to the Bishop. With regard to the money claim, the following facts will both clearly and fully explain how it has been founded. In his will, Mr. O'Farrpll, father of P 8 0 O'Farrell, left the following bequests in trust to the Ri»ht Rev Dr* Goold :—: — ° Convent of Nuns in city of Melbourne ... £300 St. Patrick's Cathedral "" jaa Friendly Brothers ... ... \\\ 5^ S».. Francis' Church ... ... *" jqq Bishop's sole and exclusive use and benefit ... 300 Masses ... ... ... jqq Catholic Association ... ... ") gA St. Francis' Seminary ... ..[ '[ -jqq These several bequests amounted to £1100, and in 1854 the son the unhappy man now in prison, who was one of the executors of hia father swill, gave the Bishop a cheque for that amount. Between the date of that payment and 1863— nine years— he made no demand upon the Bishop, nor in any way even so much as hinted at any irregularity in the circumstances under which the provision in the will relating to bequests had been carried out. As we have already stated, he acknowledged, on the eve of his flight, that he waa iv his Lordship s debt, as really was the case. Not for some time after did he make any claim upon the Bishop, and then he wrote from California, where he had settled. His demand was that the total amount of the legacies should be refunded with interest, as the estate had been found insolvent. When the cheque covering them was received the amount was distributed as directed, and if the estate was then insolvent that fact was unknown to the Bishop. O'Farrell •ontinued to persistently and most offensively demand repayment, _ and his Lordship, being informed "that he was in poor circumstances, forwarded to him altogether £300, which was the amount of the bequest in his favour. It was in the Bishop's power to do that, but it was not in his power to recover the sums paid away. Subsequently O'Farrell ventured to return to Melbourne, and, in a manner most offensive and troublesome to the Archbishop persisted in demanding the whole amount of the legacies, with interest superadded, and, as his Grace had already a-sted towards him with unmerited generosity, he would have nothing more to say to him. His failure to bully and frighten his Grace into compliance with an impudent and preposterous claim appears to have rendered him desperate, and his rash act of Monday was the consequence of his madness. We have omitted to notice acts of a most discreditable character of which O'Farrell has been guilty, and of which no one of his education and position who was in his right senses could commit as we wished to confine ourselves to particulars essential to the explanation we have deemed it advisable to give.