CASE OF EX-SISTER LIGUORI

New Zealand Tablet, 21 July 1921, Page 19

CASE OF EX-SISTER LIGUORI

PROCEEDINGS IN SYDNEY.

The hearing of the claim of Bridget Alary Partridge (ex-Sister Liguori) against the Bishop of Wagga (Dr. Dwyer) for alleged wrongful arrest and imprisonment was opened at Sydney last Thursday, before Air. Justice Ferguson and a jury of four (says the Melbourne Tribune for July 7).

The following were some of the points elicited by Mr. Campbell, counsel for the Bishop, in the course of his cross-examination of plaintiff: —•

Witness said she did not know that Mr. Barton was the Grand Master of the Loyal Orange Lodge until she had left the reception house. He told her he took an interest in her “just as a friend would to a friend.” The Mother Superior had always been kind to her, and when she returned on July 24 was friendly to her. Witness did not think Sister Veronica, Mother Clare, or Sister Brenda had Q ■ any desire to do her any harm. Dr. Leahy was a kindly old gentleman, and was always ready to do everything for her. At intervals of a year it was the practice of the Bishop to call and find out the state of mind of those in the convent. They were asked if they were in good health, and if they had any complaints to make, and were they perfectly happy and contented. She replied that she was perfectly happy and contented, had no complaints, and was in good health.

“No Call to a Religious Life.” Continuing, plaintiff said she knew that if she had

been insubordinate and disobedient during her postulate and novitiate she would have been refused admission to the Order. She believed, and was expected to observe, the principle of devotion to the idea of duty as opposed to the idea of self gratification. She realised that she was limiting herself as the only reward of her devotion to the merit of the work she did. She did not inform the Bishop that she was dissatisfied with her life, but she told the Mother Superior she was not as happy as she would like to be. She thought she had no call to religious life, and would prefer a secular life. She had nourished the thdught some

years before she left. She was hot aware when at the reception house that scurrilous attacks had been made on convent life, and on the Catholic religion generally in connection with her case. She was allowed to read the newspapers, and she wrote a letter that she desired to have published. She was not happy in convent life, but when she left she held it in the highest estimation, and on no account would she wish anyone to speak against it.' She was at one time proud of her position as a Catholic, and she was not ashamed of it now, but she was not so proud of it as she used to be. She had not associated with Catholics since last August. Any member of the community wishing to leave was free to do so, but it was hard to get dispensation. She was not told that the Bishop had called at the reception house, and had not been allowed to see her at the time. She left there early in the morning with the Inspector-General of Police and Mr. Barton, and went to Mr. Barton’s house. After that she went for a holiday for about two weeks, and returned to Mr. Barton’s house, where she stayed for three weeks, afterwards going to Mrs. Touchell’s. Several of her letters went astray while the case was on. The police were not informed that she had been nearly done to death at the convent. It did not occur to her whilst she was staying with Mrs. Thompson to complain to the Inspector of Police of the attempt on her life.