THE SYDNEY DIVORCE CASE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 3, 17 January 1901, Page 3

THE SYDNEY DIVORCE CASE.

SOME NEWSPAPER VERDICTS.

Pressing demands have been made upon us by subscribers from various parts of the Colony for information regarding the singular divorce case that was concluded in Sydney on December 14 by the disagreement of the jury, of whom eight were in favor of the corespondent (the Very Rev. Dr. O'Haran) and four against. We intend at the proper time to have something to say regarding the case. In the meantime those of our readers who desire information on the matter will find the facts of the case well summed up in the following extracts which we take from a number of Australian papers. • In this cane,* says an esteemed contemporary, • it was sought, on the uncorroborated word of one woman, of self-confessed immoral character, to disgrace a dignitary of the Catholic Chnrch, and to gain at the same time a sum of £5000. The Very Rev. Dr. O'Haran was accused, as everyone knows, of adultery with a Mrs! Coningham. The trial lasted for ten days, and during that time there was absolutely no point of evidence raised against the priest except the glibly repeated evidence of the respondent ; while forth* defence it was proved that on two occasions, sworn to definitely by her as times of committal of the offence at oertain plaoes, Dr. O'Haran was elsewhere. Furthermore, the evidence went to demonstrate that on the Sunday nights selected by the Coninghams the first Sunday in the month — it was impossible that the priest could have been away from his duties. 1 'We sincerely regret,' says the Launoeston Monitor, ' that there has been such a disagreement (of the jury). But that there has been a disagreement cannot for one moment shake our opinion that there was only one verdict that could be given by an unprejudiced and impartial tribunal. 1 And such, too, is the unanimous verdict of all the Australian papers that so far as we know, have dealt with the merits of this extraordinary case. , * THE 'ARGUS.' The great Melbourne daily, the Argus, of Deoember 15, says: ' . . . The fact of a cleric of any denomination who has lived in the odor of sanctity and respect being joined as co-respondent in such a case would create a scandal of the first magnitude, grievously distressing the few and pandering to the morbid curiosity of the many. ... It needs high courage to stand undaunted in such a pillory, although the possibility of battling through an ordeal of this kind without the permanent loss of reputation was proved many years ago by the late Henry Ward Beeoher. But in the Coningham-O'Haran case the perturbation was accentuated by the position of the co-respondent as a dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church. As a consequence, the accusation levelled against him was seized upon as a pretext for resuscitating religious antagonisms, which have raged fiercely in Bydney of late. The Divorce Court, or at least its environments, became a battleground for the sectaries. ... To some extent the oourt oertainly did become an arena for religious controversy. Doctrinal tenets of the Romish Church were dragged into discussion for the purpose of suggesting that the oath of Catholics, merely because they are Catholics, may be disregarded in weighing evidence. The husband who protested himself betrayed, and the wife who confessed herself shamed, were in practioal alliance to sheet home the charge. She was the only witness on whom he relied, and the necessity for guardedly receiving evidence of this olasi in an action for pecuniary damages is obvious. Especially was this the oat* after the extraordinary revelation which led Coningham 's counsel to throw up his brief at an early stage of the hearing. Under other circumstances this disclosure might have preluded the abrupt collapse of the case. But once more the peculiar ranging of th« parties became apparent. The wife did not set up the plea of condonation — Bhe was ooncerned not to defeat but to assist the petitioner. On Dr. O'Haran's side there was, of course, no desire to have it affirmed that an offence had been condoned whioh the co-respondent solemnly swore had never been committed. For Dr. O'Haran nothing oould be satisfactory save vindication conclusive and complete. * Day after day since then a duel has been in progress between the petitioner, aggressive, excited, vindictive, and the priest, firm, unflinching, colleoted, despite the terrible stake at issue for him! Whichever way the sentiment of the jury may have swayed it was impossible for them to ignore the fact that Dr. O'Haran called

evidence to strengthen his denial as regards one of the dates alleged, whereas Mrs. Coningham's entire etory was virtually uncorroborated. Fiulinu any correction of dates, or any attempt to shake the co-respondent's witnesses, it had to be admitted that an alibi was made out by Dr O Haran as regards June 2i>. Whether that success bhould have wreektd the respondent's credibility altogether was a point on which the jury gee rued in doubt. Various minor points were open to the jury to draw adverse conclusions from if they chose, but an impartial study of the evidence must have convinced most persons that it was out of the question to return a verdict meaning ignominy and irretrievable rum u> vie co-ieepoudeuL upoii the case presented.' THE 'AttK." The other great Melbourne daily, the Aye, gays in its issue of December 17 : ' . . . Looking at the two principal actors in the case, it mutt be said that there is more in the character of the accused man than of the accusing woman to justify the theory that truth is to be found on his side. The " divinity that doth hedge a king " is not a thing to be reckoned upon by a democracy, and the celibate vows of a prieet are not a guarantee against temptation. But the office does carry respect with it, and the man in this instance had apparently lived a life worthy of the office. At any rate, no taint or charge could be brought against him, and in a matter of oath against oath that fact must be set down in his favor. On the other hand, Mrs. Coningham was less favorably situated. Neither her past life nor her demeanor in the witness-box was quite that of one whoge word would at once be taken against that of hostile witnesses. Something has been said about the unfairness vi dragging out the respondent's past ; but it is impossible to stick very closely to sentiment when the reputations of two people are vitally at stake. Ab far as can be gathered from the reports of the evidence, Mrs. Coninghani was excessively glib, precise, and accurate in points of detail. It wae rather too much like a rehearsed performance. It suggested that she had been over the ground before. Speaking the truth she may have been, but if so it was truth embellished by art — the kind of art that appreciates a dramatic situation, and, in favorable circumstances, products a Supi of the Crostt or a Robert Elsmere. . . . It appeared that Dr. O'Haran established what was virtually a complete alibi with reerard to his suggested wrongdoing on 29th June. Seven or eight independent witnesses swore positively that Dr. O'Haran was not where Mrs. Coningham said he was on that particular night The fact that condonation took place between the husband and the self-accusing wife may be a circumstance on which it is possible to lay too much stress, but there is no question as to the direction in which it points. It may not be altogether convincing evidence of collusion between husband and wife, but it ia at least consistent with that view. As far as the presiding judge was concerned, he seems to have taken up an attitude that, while it muy not have affected the issue, was at least peculiar in regard to one or two matters. What sane man, for instance, would imagine that the most elaborate theorizing over the law of absolution could determine the question of a priest's moral rectitude or depravity ? A man whu would betray his Church and degrade his Order would not be troubled much by wire-drawn theories of absolution. In adoptw.g an atrcre-tMve tone towards Cardinal Moran, the judge did Hoinchiug that was unnecessary and rather unbecoming. In referring to y recent controversy, in which Archbishop Redwood lij,'urod on ih^ Roman Catholic side, the judge was practically inviting a. renewal of a btrife that had died out. ... As regards the individuals implicated, it can only be said that the verdict of the jury will not alienate from Dr. O'Haran the faith of those who believed in him from the outset, and for the rest it must be a matter between his conscience and himself.' THK ' SOUTH AUSTRALIAN REGISTER' has the following editorial remarks in its issue of December 15 : ' This is a keenly critical world. While regarding celibacy of the priesthood as an aduiiruble contrivance for securing ecclesiastical permanency, some peopla are only too ready to assume every charge proved ngainst a priest even before any evidence has been heard which could justifyj ustify such a conclusion. Dr. O'Haran is an Irish priest, ministering to Irish Roman Catholics, a fact which is in itself the significance of the trial, for to no other nation or section of the Catholic Church is immorality more repulsive than to Irish Roman Catholics. . . . From the beginning respondent's story was tainted. . . . Where the defendant not only denies the charge, but is able to refute it by alibi after alibi on the testimony of numerous respectable witnesses, that Church would be lacking in the consideration which even a pagan might claim if she did not befriend him in the hour of trouble and trial. Nor is the Catholic Church alone in such a case. Protestants will not forget the sensational case of the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, whose innocence was only proved years after his death. The Catholic Church's doctrine of absolution, so much di.-cussed in the Sydney Court, does not materially differ from that of orthodox Protestants, unices objection be taken to the employment of a human agent to pronounce absolution, an objection which also applies to influential interpreters of the Anglican prayerbook. A powerful passage from Cardinal Newman's writings shows that the highest Catholic authorities make no terms whatever with immorality. " The Church holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extreme aprony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not nay should not be lost, but should commit one einglo venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed uone, or stole one poor farthing." ... To set aside the alibi* proved on behalf of Dr. O'Haran one must assume the existence of a widespread conspiracy to commit perjury in spite of teaching of this decisive character.' THE MELBOURNE 'LEADER' of December 22 says : ' Dr. O'Haran's defence was one of absolute denial, and feo by implication he accused those who brought the

charge of lying and collusion. There was, indeed, another explanation. Cases are not unknown in medical science where women under the influence of a diseased imagination, exercise a dangerous inventiveness, and make charges of this kind which have no foundation. In the present instance this suggestion was not raised, and Dr. O'Haran's counsel did not hesitate to ascribe the action as one of conspiracy and blackmail. . . . There was no supporting evidence brought against Dr. O'Haran. On hia side there was an array of witnesses, who supplied a convincing alibi concerning one of the most important dates. ... A commonbeiibc iaferouot: might be Jrawn that the people who swore Dr. O'Uaran was at Wimbledon at a birthday feast on the day and hour which Jlr». Couiughaui had beleotcd J\.r an event of a very different kind at Sydney, St. Mary's Cathedral, was that her story could not be true. .... A curious feature of the proceedings was the wonderful interpretation put by petitioner on the theological doctrine of absolution. He seemed to be under the impression that Roman Catholics enjoyed an absolute freedom in lying. It should be hardly necessary to say that this preposterous doctrine U not held by the Roman Catholic Church or by any other community of reasonable beings. Absolution claims no more than that true penitence may wipe away the sin as between the sinner and God. . . . The petitioner was apparently prompted by some fanatical opponents of Roman Catholicism.' THE MELBOURNE ' OUTPOST ' of the same date (December 22) says :— ' There is nothing inordinately secret or mysterious about the Roman Catholic Church. Its doings and institutions are open to inspection, irrespective of the faith of inquisitors, and it is held in high respect by all intelligent members of other churches or of no church at all. To those who hold the Roman Catholic Church in high esteem, tbe circamstanoe that Cardinal Moran expressed his unshaken faith in Dr. O'Haran waß sufficient evidence of the Doctor's innocence. To snoh pereona it would be inconceivable that a Prince of the Church could exert himself to cloak a gross offender against the Church's most rigid laws. From the point of view of policy alone, suoh an authoritative attitude towards a publicly accused priest would be foolish in the highest degree, unless the Cardinal were convinced beyond all possible shadow of a doubt that the priest were absolutely innocent/ THE ' STANDARD ' (Ipswich, Queensland) says : ' Trial by jury is becoming a farce in Sydney. Those who are behind the scenes know that there are certain men who make a profession of squaring jurors, either to return a verdict for their side or sit for a disagreement, so that practically justice and law are of no account in the trial of important cases. A much better way would be to have important cases tried by a bench of say five judges. This would kill the occupation of the jury-squarer, and lessen the danger arising from such practice. Any prominent politician can be charged with a crime of which he is innocent and, although he may not be found guilty, the suspicion can attach itself to him by fiscal believers on the side causing a disagreement in face of the evidence adduced.' MELBOURNE ' HERALD.' ' Sydney Snapshot? ' in the evening paper, the Melbourne Jfrrahl, had the following regarding the extraordinary attitude adopted by Judge Simpson, before whom the case was tried :—: — ' In some respects it is a pity that the Chief Justice could not have presided over the trial, and that counsel could not have been provided for the petitioner. Mr. Justice Simpson apparently finds it necessary to do more for Comngham than Beems to be fair or reasonable, and Mr. " Jack " Want has been heard to say that if it were not for the grave character of the case he would have thrown down his brief on the second day. Hia Honor has a habit of cutting into cross-examination in a manner that would lead to very strong protest by members of the Victorian bar, and every now and then he Btops the proceedings, while he gives a kind of interim summingup to the jury. 1 BRISBANE 'AGE' of December 29 has the following editorial remarks on the trial :— ' If there is to be a new trial it should, in all justice, come Boon, for the co-respondent is being praotically tried for his life. He labors under the terrible disadvantage of having had those incendiary religious questions, over which the world has wrangled for hundreds of years, mixed up with the question of fact, which question would have been regarded as a comparatively simple one had he happened to be not a priest, but, say, a soft-goodaman named Smith, and had the locus in quo been not a Cathedral but the office of a warehonse. Should a second trial take place, it is to be hoped that it will be conducted before a judge who will steer clear of pagoda-talk and remember that the only deterrent to perjury is fear of statutory penalty. The ordinary man-and-woman trial is quite tough enough without the interposition of the religious question.' THE 'AUSTRAL LIGHT 1 says in its issue for January :—: — ' A feature of this extraordinary case ia that the respondent came into oourt, not to defend herself, but to prove her husband's case. The judgej udge himself remarked that he had never seen a similar instance during his legal career. This woman, who had alleged herself to be in love with Dr. O'Haran, and, at first, to have been an unwilling witness, threw herself into the prosecution with a zeal calculated to provoke the most cynical reflections on the understanding existing between herself and her husband. It was this circumstance, joined to the conflicting oaths of the parties, that led the Age to draw the argument from charaoter in favor of Dr. O'Haran. That anyone should have the hardihood to bring such a case on such evidence ia remarkable — the uncorroborated tale of a woman of bad antecedents, That the case resulted in a diaagreement of the jury ia even more remarkable, until we oome to consider the attitude of the judge. That Mr. Justioe Simpson's

attitude throughout the trial was incorrect is a matter of notoriety, and the restrained but severe strictures passed on him by the Age are well deserved. From the beginning be took on himself to consider that Coningham (who had the daily advioe of three lawyers) was not represented by counsel. On this ground he constituted himßelf an unbriefed advocate of the petitioner, and seemed, to the eye of the man in the street, to become far too warmly attached to the interests he was defending to keep hit head clear for his duties as a judge.' TRR ' MOTJTTOR ' (Launoeston) says in its issue of December 21 : — •It has often been the case, sad to Bay, that men of tho most honorable and saintly character have had to answer false charges of this description. Vile persons for their own base and sordid purposes have often brought accusations against their felloworeatures whioh they have afterwards retracted and for which from their deathbeds they have done their best to make reparation. Away baok in the early centuries of Christian history such a charge was levelled against St. Athanaßius, and the woman of that early period has had imitators more or less base in every century that has sinoe passed. The vindication of St. Athanasius was full and complete, and so, too, we feel confident, will be the vindication of the accused in the present case. . . . _ 'Consider the circumstances of this extraordinary suit. The petitioner was one Arthur Coningham, a cricketer and chemist. His wife, who before her marriage fell from virtue at the early age of 17, and who subsequently posed as a widow and wore widow's weeds in Brisbane, where her mother kept the barrack " canteen," alleged that the Rev. Dr. O'Haran, Administrator of St. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, misconducted himself with her at the cathedral and in the buildings adjacent thereto throughout a lengthened period, and under circumstances whioh rendered detection almost a matter of certainty. In a divorce case the respondent cannot be compelled to give evidence on behalf of the petitioner ; but in this suit we find the wife a willing and most anxious witness to prove her own dishonor and her own shame. We often hear it laid down in our own courts of law that prostitutes, when asked to testify as to matters which do not ooncern chastity or honor, may be believed, but in this case we see a wife produced as a witness, and produced, too, by her husband, to tell in his interest and for his advantage the story of his alleged dishonor and of her own base shame. This is a circumstance that excites a grave suspicion. Moat women with a grain of self-respect would, if they fall, shrink from a confession of their dishonor, and especially from a confession made in open court before crowded audienoe, and in reply to questions put . by their husbands. And this is not all. Tke husband and wife occupied the same room even ■Jter the legal proceedings had commenced. He paid the bill for their board and lodging. They were apparently friendly. Nay, he even nursed and fondled the child that he sought by his divorce suit to brand with bastardy. Is that the conduct of a man who really believed in hia wife's infidelity, and was anxious to secure divorce from her ? Coningham and his wife were found upon very intimate terms before the court opened. When the case began, we find that the wife, instead of insisting as she legally could npon being silent as to her own shame, not only puts in no defence of condonation, which would be legally and properly open to her under the circumstances, but cornea into court and unblushingly, at the request of her husband, tells a story which no self-respecting woman could relate. The whole thing stinks in the nostrils of all decent people. The husband pretends to be injured beyond the utmost value of all the pills he oould sell during his lifetime, or the money he could make by bowling balls, and yet the only witness he calls to prove the wrong done to him is the wife of his bosom, who is ready to answer all his questions as to her own alleged dishonor — so ready indeed as to justify the presumption that question and answer were all arranged before the farce was gone through in court. Mr. Want, Q.C., the able counsel who conducted the defence plainly put it to the jury that the case was of blackmail. . . 1 Upon the evidence the verdict should have gone in favor of Dr. O'Haran. The only witness for the petitioner was his wife. Her evidence was contradicted in nearly every particular, not merely by Dr. O'Haran, but by independent witnesses. She swore that Dr. O'Haran was with her on July 3 for three quarters of an hour whilst a procession was taking place in the Cathedral ; that the sacristan, Langton, was showing her out when Dr. O'Haran left the ohurch and came with her instead. Langton — who also swore that Mrs. Coningham tried to get at him over the case — declared her whole story regarding July 3 to be an absolute fabrication. His Eminence Cardinal Moran swore that on that particular night Dr. O'Haran was never absent for five or 10 minutes from his side during the devotions. Mrs. Coningham swore that on June 29 Dr. O'Haran was with her at St. Mary's between seven and eight o'clock, whilst four or five respectable witnesses, ladies and gentlemen, testified that on that vary night, and during the hours named, Dr. O'Haran was with them at a small social party in a suburb some eight or ten miles outside of Sydney. It passes our comprehension to explain how any jury oould after such contradiction believe one word the woman swore.'