The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-02-13 00:00:00

PuP STOURI3RIAGE OBSERVER.

EXTRAnT{DINARY ACTION BY A
SISI'ER OF MERCY.
r„ the conrt of Queen's Bench the bud Chief Justice and
special jury base been occupied for a lengthened pers of
with the case of " Baurin V. Starr and another."
The plaintiff, who it will -1-3-e remembered is r.n Irish
'ady, was Once a sister of mercy, and tho defendants,
Mrs. Starr and Mrs. Kennedy, are the lady superior
and a sister in some authority of the convent of the
order at Hull.
The action is for tumult, libel, and trover. The
charge of assault has relation to the lady's expulsion
from the convent at 111111, and the libel complained of
was embodied in communications addressed to the
Roman Catholic bishop of the diocese, imputing to her
grave offences from the sisters' point of view. She
was, moreover, accused of habitual violation of truth.
The plaintiff was a young lady, the daughter of a
gentleman residing in Dublin, having a brother who
was a Jesuit priest in Ireland, and two sisters who
were nuns. Her conventual name was Sister Mary
Scholastics, and she was admitted Into the Convent of
Illerny in Eag.ot-street, Dublin, in the year 1851,
bringing with her a portion of £3OO.
The defendant Mm. Starr had been admitted a short
time previously, and she and the plaintiff soon 'willow
great friends. Miss Saurin's life in the convent at
Dublin 'is described as being entirely happy. In the
year Ws, however, the authorities of the order deter.
mined upon opening a branch convent at Cliffor
near 'Patlcaater, in Yorkshire, and Mrs. Starr was
transferred to England to act as Lady Sliperior. It
was desired that Miss Saurin should accompany her,
she being regarded as one eminently onalified to take
part in the work of education. After some time dif-
ferences arose between Miss Saurin and the lady
!superior in respect of her conduct as a religieuse.
.F.slocially it was complained of her that in disregard
sir the rules of the convent she held converse with
people outside. After a time a convent was imened at
Hull, and Miss Sanrin was removed there. She worked
bard at the schools, she said, but notwithstanding all
her efforts distrust was exhibited towards her by the
other sisters; indeed, she was in a great degree with-
drawn from their society. At length she was dismissed
form the convent and from the sisterhood at the com-
mencement tif 1866. the money which she had brought
into the order being returned to her. Substantially
the complaint resolves itself into a charge of wrong-
ful dismissal from the convent for reasons founded on
falsehood and malice. The count in trover has
reference to the detention at the convent id certain
articles of clot hing that belonged to the plaintiff. The
defendants plead in effect that the plaintiff, in enter-
ing the Sisterhood of Mercy voluntarily subjected
herself to the rules of the order, and especially did she
submit herself to the authority if the Roman Catholic
bishop of the diocese, who has supreme control over
the sisterhood ; that while an inmate of the convent
she constantly violated its rules ; and that, finally she
was dismissed the order with the full authorisation of
the diocesan.

The Solicitor-General, Mr. Digby Seymour, Q.C.,
and Mr. A. Willem represented the plaintiff; and Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. Charles
Russell, the defendants.

During Miss Saurin's examination, which had ex-
tended "vie three days, the circumstances connected
with the remarkable case were minutely detailed, but
a report of which our limited space prevents us from
giving.

_
Every day the Court an all the avenues leading to
it were densely crowded, and the most intense interest
was manifested in the proceedings.
During the cross-examination of Miss Saurin, on
Saturday, she was closely questioned respecting the
mass of incidents of which she had spoken in her
examination-in-chief, the counsel for the defence en-
deavouring to show that she had been guilty of an
habitual infraction of some of the rules of the convent.
Before the case was resumed, a consultation took
place, with a vie wto the settlement of the awe, between
the counsel of either side and Dr. Cornthwaite, Roman
Catholic Bishop, but without a successful result.

Cross-examination of the plaintiff resumed When I was
kept standing at the schools at Cliffoid Milt Hull I was acting
under the orders of Mrs. Starr. She gave me the order before
I went to Clifford. That was not when we were good
friends it was after the August retreat in 1563. She told
Inc Mrs. Nl' Keon would give me a distribution of time, and
that I wart.: submit myself in all things to her.
To the Lord Chief Justice: She did not tell me to stand
personally. I was merely to obey Mrs. ll'Keon
Cross-exaniined: Mrs. al•Keori gave me the order to stand.
She told me she had received the order from Mrs. Starr. Up
to 1552 Mrs al 'Seen and myself were very good friends:
atter that there was a coldness between us. She told me that
II I were to see the letters from Mrs. Starr [should not be sur-
prised at licr conduct. She told me I was not to speak to
her, and she was not to speak to me, because I was a bad
eaimple. That was said when she was reproving me,
and I dared not make any remark upon what she said.
When I went from Clifford to Hull I was not aware that Mrs.
Starr was going to return to flull. On that occasion I was
sitting at work, and Mrs. Starr snatched the work out of my
hand, refused to allow me to tell the sister who was sitting
by my side how the work was to be gone on with, and Irma
me out of the room. In five minutes after that we were out
of the house on our way to the station. It was to duty to
carry the basket. I had to early the umbrella over her;
when I hell it equally between us, she told me I was
carrying it badly. (Laughter.) I got very wet. I made no
complaint when I arrived at Hull. My time was dintrihated
thus had to sweep my cell out by six echo. k. The,other
sisters were allowed until ten to do so. I had to sweep the
corridor and dust the pictures, and two altars. There were
two Sights of stairs and a second corridor. There was some-
thing written upon the tablets which were taken from tile.
The Lord Chief Justice: There is not a vestige of writing
on them now, although there are traces of erasure.
Mr. Hawkins lam aware 41 that, my lord.
Crosaexamination contionrd When Mrs. Starr took the
tablets from in, I asked her not to read what was in them.
Iliad written there a few memoranda for confession. she
read me out parts of the entriea, and she said that they
were sic at other sisters. They referred to one .if the sisters
staying on the tower for several hour. with Mr. Collins. I
oas greatly disedffierl hy snch conduct, as it was against the
rules. It was my duty to communicate such a circumstance
to the superioress.
You say it was your duty to report such a thing to the
sumiornis?---It was.

Why did you notT—Recause she was at Hall.
In her absence, to whom was it your duty to report it?—
To the toeal superioress.

And why •ih you not do so!--Tlecanse it wla the local
superionsa herself who did it. I Much laughter and op
plause

Cross-examination continued: I intended to tell Mrs. Starr
Of it. Mrs. McKeon was the local superioress. Ido hot
know who Mr. Collins is. I only know that he was a Ire.
stunt visitor of Mrs. Starr. Laughter'. There is a Mrs.
Collins, but I do not think that she was there up m the
occasion. It would have mmle no difference to roe if Mrs.
Collins was there or not. I thought that the local sops
rioress hail no right to waste so much time. When I was
reading my brother's letter Mrs. Starr snatched it from my
hann . she would have been much displeased had I asked
for an explanation of her conduct. She had been so on
many other occasions. She had on c previous occasion
blotted mit a part of one of my sister's letters. lam sure
neither of my sisters would write anything which was unfit
for me to read.

_
Mr. Hawkins : You were, however, aware that the alma-
rioress had a right to make such erasures from letters re-
ceived by the sisters.
The Lord Chief Justice : There is a differense between
tight and power. Eat every such right most be exercised
honestly, and malt not he used for purposes of oppression.
The charge is that powers of this kind were ['Mired for
the purpose of driving the plaintiff out of the convent.

ci,ss..examination c7ontinUed When I was ordered• to
hold the dust-box it was a penance for some supposed fault,
lad I never saw any other sister compelled to perform such
a penance. It is an unusual thing for sisters to have a fire
in their cells. I never aske I for a lire until my clothes were
taken from me. I had a mattress, a bolster, a pillow, sheets,
and two small blankets, which were stilled, and would
scarcely cover the bed. I asked Mrs. Starr for other baskets,
and she told me to bear the cold for my sins. She came into
the room Olt alt occasion, and pulled elf the blankets. I
did not ask her what she did it for. I dared not ask such a
mi!stion.

• Mr. Hawkins ) Do you mean to say, if she had come into
the n aim and pulledyou out of bed, hail kicked you, and had
thount you down, you would not have asked why she did
sot Witness ) What she did was neary as bad. (Laughter).
She came into my room when I was asleep, and pulled off
the clothes roughly. I think between 184:3 and 1864. I
never asked the supertoress why she did anything, neither
did I ever remonstrate with her. Before the com-
munion I was charged with having sent too many clothes to
Wash, but the sister who superintended those matters told
me that I had fewer clothes in the wash than any other
sister, and wondered how I kept myself SO clean. There is
a rule that we are not to speak to "extents.' We are
always instructed to treat a priest as ladies would treat a
gentleman We were to acknowledge his presence, and to
answer his questions, but not to stand and talk with him.
I never remember to have spoken to a priest contrary to the
rule. Mrs. Starr might have said that I (Mblce to the priest
unnecessarily. Any deviation from the rules is deemed a fault,
and at Raggot-street hail to he acknowledged standing; lint
rs.starr made the reg-ulat ion thsit the acknowledgmentshould
be made kneeling. She obliged me to kneel before the novices
and the lay sisters. This was done every morning In 1857
or 185.9 the Cardinal visited the convent, and I hail a pair of
very old boots, and I took a loan of Mrs. Kennedy's boots for
an hour or two, without asking her leave. It was the
custom for on to borrow each other's things. I had not time
li, ask her leave. I thought no more about it until I heard of
It again at the commission. My boots were too bad to
appear before visitors in, awl as I had to take refreshments
to the Cardinal, and nip dress was tucked up, I thought I was
doing right to MiTow the boots. I told Mrs. Kennedy myself
I had taken them. She gave me the boots herself imme-
diately afterwards, and she had offered them to me before.
It ass a Wilt to be late for spiritual duties. (on-
stant complaints were not made against me that
I was late. It was a fault to be late for refection
or for recreation. I never committed any such fault
without -making reparation by acknowledging it as a
fault. After that Mrs. start introduced as a regulation that
each sister was to kiss the floor when late for duty. ) Laugh-
ter) That was after 1862. I frequently kissed the floor.
Mrs. Starr and Airs. Kennedy never kissed the floor, whether
Lite or not. :Laughter.: They had no penance to perform
(Laughter.) I was frequently kept late at the school. There
was no particular spot we hail to kiss—we kissed where we
liked. (Laughter. I made the tea when I was refectorian.
I never poured outs good cup of tea first for myself, and
put it aside with a piece of buttered toast. 'Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice : That would rather presuppose
that she liked weak tea; because the later cups would be
stronger. Laughter.)
Mr. Hawkins t But it was before the second water was
pet in, iny lord Laughter.' _ .

Did you not aeknowledae ae a fault in your monthly letter
to Mrs. atarr, that you hatl been rude and unkind to the
children ?—f was obliged to do so. I had not been rude or
unkind to them.

Why were you obliged to write what was not the fact ?
Because everything the local superioresa said was a fault, and
said I had committed, I wasobliged to admit without making
any comment upon it. 'limes. 2
Suppose you had been told that you had uttered an un-
truth, would you have admitted that I—No ; that would have
been a grave fault.

Welt; if she had Wit you habitually neglected your duty,
would you have written that I—Yes.
Even though It were untrue ?—Well; she would under-
stand what she rneaut by neglect of duty, and I should take
What she said.

The Loral Chief Justice f It strikes me there is an answer
to fie found in the nature of things. The superioress might
confider that to beg neglect of duty or unkindness to a chili
as to which the plaintiff might entertain a different opif don ;
but she would coneider herself bound hy the opinion of the
wiperioreso. she may think the judgment erroneous and
severe, but she is bound by it. So much for a Small matter.
But ill am accused of a serious and grave fault, I am not
Isamu! to admit the correctness oor the superiority of anynedy
as to it. The answer of the witness le perfectly intelligible.
Mr. Hawkins to witness. Suppose the local superioress
had said you stole a hook, would you, Is, writing to the
mother superiorees, say that you had would not.
(7mm-examination continued f At the commission the
summary of the charges was read to me. In some instances
Was Informed which of the sisters had given information
respecting the charges. I was not allowed to give any ex-
Pilmation foi the charges, except when my uncle put questions
to me. When the charge was read to me I was asked
whether I was guilty or not ; and l said " Yea" or " "
according to circumstances I was two or three hours the
first day and an hour on the secant day before the conimis-
Mon. I don't remember that I made a series of charges
against the mother and the sisters. I merely gave an expla-
nation when asked to do so I repeatedly asked for the
clothes I had been wearing to be produced, but they were not
produced. I knew, after the bishop wrote, that I was free to
leave the convent whenever I liked, and that they were

anxious to get rid of me, but 1 woUld not-Terme-voluntarily.
I was not permitted to leave my cell after my dress was
taken. I was co:kit/Ira a ithin the four walls of my room, and
one ot the titers held the door. I wanted to lease the room.
but they would not permit ice to do no. Mn. Starr kept back
a letter I wrote to my brother. I wrote a letter to Mrs. Starr
,aying that I would never go of my own free will. I emote
that letter with my brother. My brother said my friends
would take legal steps. My brother brought a physician
,sir
Henry cooper, to see me, and then took me away. From
1862 down to the year ISa6 I never expressed a wish to go,
Clef was refused. I refused to leave because Mrs Starr had
written to several convents, and I Ilia not know where I
should be sent. I was not allowed to bring any charge
against the sisters or the superioress at the rommission.
The Lord Uhler Justice Dll you mean to say that if you
were charged with an offence before the commission you
were riot allowed to give All explanation of your conduct if
suck an coplanar involved a charge against either the
sisters or the superloress?
Witness That was the case, my lord?
After a question had been raised respecting some
istatem •itts which had been made before the commis-
sion against the plaintiff, a copy of which had been
refused the plaintiff's counsel, it was agreed that the
copy should be furnished before proceeding further,
and the case was accordingly adjourned.

ditk-not receive a letter- from my niece in-Maie 671582:
(The intercepted letter written by plaintiff without permission,
then read. In 1563, I W. at Harrogate, and went to Clifford
to see my niece. bile ail not make any complaint, hut ex-
pressed her confidence in the bishop. On my return to
Ireland in October I wrote to the bishop urging inquiry. lit
ltekt I went to Hull. I arrived about five or six o'clock on a
Saturday evening. After some time a young sister named
Dawson, who seemed rather impetuous, came in and said,
" Ilave you an miler from the biahopl" I sail "1 had one
last year;" to which she replied, " That will not do now."
I asked her how she knew that, she said very abruptly and
very rudely, " Your niece tells lies." Soon after she retired
my niece came in. She brought in a quarter-hour glass, and
I I only saw her for the quarter of an hour. I never knew
such a thing to be done in the case of a relative who is a
, priest. I next saw my niece in the autumn of 1565. I heard
that there had been communications between my niece and
her brother the Jesuit priest.
Letter of the bishop to the witness of 15th September,
1565, read. It stated that the best interests of the commu-
nity required the removal of Ms niece)
, Letter from the defendant, dated 20th September, 1.461,
stated that plant ill's brother had refused to take his sister, •1
and had bronglit serious charges against the community
regarding his sister as a suffeling saint, anti " claiming for
her the siipernatural consolations of a heavenly Vision." It
stated that the brother doubted the validity of the dispensa-
tion. The bishop stated that he was about to issue a com-
mission, which witness was at liberty to attend if he thought
Drown) _

"Wilie Solicitor-General: A dispeusation must he obtained
from Rome on a repre-entation 01 well ascertained guilt of a
grave character. The guilt moat be either judicially deter-
mined or as clear as If it were so.
_ . .

To the Lord Chief Justice The bishop could not grant a
dispensation. It can only he granted by the Holy Father.
Does a dispensati 111 l necessarily carry a stigma with It?—
Ye,, my Ion!, a censure of the gravest Sind.
The Solicitor-General : There was a condition attached to
the dispensation taking effect I—Yes, the party must assent.
And the assent was obtained by the condition being made
the hearing ton masses 1--Yes. It was a very extraordinary
tidal,. altogether.

The Lort Chief Justice It is called a dispensation, but
that is a very mild term for it.
Cross-examination continued : The bishop must satisfy
the Court ,4 Rome that guilt 1.11 clear and well-established
before a dispensation, can be granted.
Had your niece, so far as you knew, the slightest notion
of any application, to the See of Rome ?—Not the slightest
notion.

Examination continued I saw the Bishop, and asked him
what was alleged against my niece? He said he would read
the charges to me—that he had a number of them from the
sisters. Ile then real the letters purporting to he the charges.
When he had concluded, I said," Sly lord, are these the only
charges?" Ile said " Yes." I then said, "It strikes me, my
lord, It would be very easy to dispose of these. They appear
to me to be of a very trivial character." They struck toe as
being so. They were the milinary faults that might be ex-
pected to occur. The Bishop merely said, " These arerhei
e WWI a letter from Mrs. Starr read, saying she was going
to Liverpool to see the Rev. Mr. Porter ; and she stipulated
that if a commission was to be mmointed, the Rev. Mr. Porter
should be on it. The libilmo said he was ansiousto appoint im-
partial persons, so that justice should be done. Ile suggested
his vicar. and I assented; also the priest at Hull, who knew
everything connected with the convent, arid I assented.
He spoke if the Rev. Mr. Porter. I dill not like to object,
although I knew Inin to be a partisan. Ile also spoke of the
Rev. Mr. Cullimore. In order to get rid of the Rev. Mr.
Porter, I sail I thought Father Culliniore and Father Porter
should not be appointed, as they hail acted as confessors at
the convent at Hull during the retreats. I suggested that
one of the professors from the College of Maynooth should
Ice appointed, and he acceded to the appointment of Dr.
wElaulon. I understood that the commission was to consist
of three—the Vicar-Dotterel, the De 5, and Dr. 011anlon.
The bishop Rah! I could be present HI so desired. I asked
whether the parties who made the accusations would appear
and depose as to their truth. Ile Kidd they would, and that
they could be cross-exmnined. After my return to Ireland I
wrote to the bishop, on November 2.11 d, Doti, stating that Dr.
D'Hanlon was willing to act. The bishop replied, stating he
had amminteil the Rev. Mr. l'orter a commissioner, but hail
not made up his nand as to the vicar; that If he appointed
the vicar he would appoint a 111th; stating further that no
member of the family would be allowed to be present except
himself Father Mathews ; that he required a written promise
for the removal of the plaintiff if she should be found guilty;
and that if she were pronounced wholly innocent, and that,
in consequence it was proved there WaS a conspiracy against
her, it was for him witness to say whether she should he
left in such hands.
The Lord Chief Justice: Did you reply to that letter ?—I
did not, my lord. l could not accede, and I did not think it
prudent to express dissent. (Laughter.,
The comniisslon was entirely different to that to which I bad
agreed. I arrived at Hull on the morning of the sth of
January to attend the commission. I saw my niece. She
came in with a quarter glass. I sent her to Mrs. Starr,
to remonstrate, as I was there to assist my niece, and Mrs.
Starr came in and said it had beeo done at my niece's re-
quest and that she ought stay as long as I liked. I asked
my niece had she received any information [lB to the charges,
and she said " No ; that she hail only received notice of the
coin. iwion which was to sit the next day." I told her what
I remembered of the charges, disobedience, violation of
poverty, and untruth.

T,e Lord thief Juatlee: Had you told her of a charge of
levity awl improper conduct In reference to a priest f—That
had been insinuated, rather than charged.
. . _ . .

Mamma i11)1 continued: I told her t; think, and put down
some materials to go on with. Next morning she told me
that she had not been able to do as I asked that the nuns
in the community room had been making a noise. She had
not received a copy of the charges, nor had I. The com-
missioners met is the reception room. I found I was not
append,d, as I had hoped to be, to the commission,
and the bishop's secretary told me I would receive
an intimation when I might appear. The commis-
sioners remained in consultation alone for three quar-
ters of a. hour. When I was allowed to appear I called for
the noire charges to be read, and I od,jected to Mr. Porter
being a connnissioner. One of the regulations or instruc-
tions sent by the bishop was that no charge should he per-
mitted to be made by a sister. I complained of that, as it
was impossible to make explanations in reply to some of the
charges without inculpating others. Another regulation
was that if four-fifths tweed on any point the charge was
to be taken as proved. i'hat I believe to be made or the
purpose of getting rid of Dr. illusion, who was regarded
as my niece's friend. If four-fifths did not think the charges
disproved, they were to be taken as proved.
"

Tue Lord Chief Justice: -frave you got a copy of the in-
structions ? I think they ought to be prodnced and put in
evidence: Then, as I understand, the concurrence of the
fifth commissioner's was not required i—Witness : It was
not, my lord.
.

T.o tile Solicitor-General: There was another condition as
to witnesses, that it tonr-tlfths I,f the commission did not
agree they might deterini to, to eau no.ee, but there was
no such provision made as to the accasvd.
. .

The Lt;-rd Chid t Istla, IC7; Ti; ..rt It we shoot
see those Ni, ,010 In (Or ,m,mt doa
that Father Mathews is giving his truthful opinion as to
them; hut he only heard them read, and may he mistaken.
The Rev. Mr Mathews: And read with very great speed,
too, toy lord. (Laughter.

16cm-oblation vontomed When the bishop's instructions
were read, 1 alb!, Thovie instrn, ti us are a violation of the
enFogement the ,balopnuvle to me."
_

In what respret ?—fn thia; that the bishop toll me I
shou'd have an ..nnortonity of cross-examining the parties,
and they were not even produced.
The Lord Chief Justice: Were not the full chames read?
Ni, toy lord only some if them. The digest was read.
They were all before the c.mmissioners.

.....
bill you apply for an opportunity to cross-examine the
pelves who made cl,ore.?—l 111, my lord; and the com-
missioners said they should follow the bishop's instructions.
The Solicitor-tieneral And, in fact, not one of the nuns
appeared It—Not tone. I also applied to produce and examine
Mrs. Grimston, whose name was mentioned, on behalf of my
niece.

The Lord Chief Justice Was that refused? It was, my

-EXamination continued I found that I was merely to be
permitted to ask a word or two of my niece.
And were you atoppedd—Oh, frequently.

The Lord Chief Justice Was any reason given for stopping
you?—When eodeavottring to examine my niece, whvn any
other name was mentioned, I was told I should not involve
any of the nuns. I was occasionally polled up by the bishop's
secretary. ,Laughter.) He cautioned me as to the course I
was pursuing.
You were prohibited asking any question of your niece in
which the name of any of the sisters was mixed up
my lord.

Although, as I understand, you deemed the qnestlor.
necessary to exculpate your niece ?—that is so, my lord.
Examination cootinneil : I desired to have the charges and
other documeots rent to chow that Father Porter was a
partisan, and that the accusers ought not to select their own
evidence and appoint the Judge. On the second day I felt
quite liewildeied en to chat I should sin on my niece's
behalf. I wished to have a word before the matter closed,
so I put 11, question softly to the president and got on by
small degrees, until at last, hale by little, I got out that
as; niece had suffered, and ninny things she had had to en-
dure of which I had never heard before.

Dill Father Porter interfere with you at alit—Oh yes ; and
I thoucht with very great indecency.
Did lie contradict your niece ?—lie did aa to matters of
fact, of which ho could have had no personal knowledge;
and not only so, init he did it violently and offensively. I
wrote to the bishop letter produced) stating that 'common
sense and decency were outraged hy the partisan conduct of
Father Porter ".

Letter from the bishop to witness, requiring removal of
his melee, in fulfilment of his undertaking, read.
(tVituese's reply read, denying that he had given such an
undertaking, adding that the parents of the plaintiff had
promised to abide by the result of a fair and impartial in-
quiry, but that the conduct of some parties connected with
It rendered it "worse than a cruel and offensive farce."
„Applause, which NM quickly suppresaed. The witness
added in the letter ; "Every principle of justice
and religion have been violated in the t erson of
my niece. The exposure by legal proceedings would bring
Infamy linen the superior of the convent at hull, and in-
jure every convent in the three kingdoms. " lie con-
cluded by expressing his regret that the "fabricators of
false charges' were to escape, while a sister was to be ex-
pelled '• whose greatest fault nes her patience and great
endurance.",
The Court then adjourned.

On Tuesday, the most intense interest was still mani-
fested, and the crowd was NO great unto cause a struggle at
the door between barristers who wanted to get out and
people who wanted to get in. The bench, or that part
of the court which is supposed to partake the sacred-
netts of the judgment seat, was occupied by persons
whose rank and influence had procured them ad-
mission. All the front seats in the body of the court
were taken up by gentlemen is r forensic costume, at
least hslf as many wigs as heads being distinguish-
able between the clerk's table and the gallery at the
back. In the crowd behind the last row of barristers
many female faces were to be seen; and all the fore-
most si,ectators seated in the cutleries were ladies, two
or three wearing the garb of the convent.
Mr. Saurin, the plaintiff's father, was again ex-
amined ; but the most important evidence was that
given by her uncle. the Rev. Mr. Mathews.

- Mr. Mathews said it was through his influence that the
reluctance of Mr and Mrs. Saurin to their daughter entering
a convent was overcome. After she was removed to Eng-
land (which was only consented to on the promise of the
Archbishop of Dioilin that she should return whenever it
WWI desired. Mr. Mathews was in the habit of visiting her
almost every year. He found her happy, and he was always
well received. At length he perceived a growing coolness
towards him, easy to Levi, he said, but difficult to describe.
This increased to such an extent that he was at last nut
allowed to say MASA in the convent, which he had
been in the habit of doing, as priests usually
do when they visit a convent. The clergyman under whose
charge the Hull convent was placed was " horrified," Mr.
Mathews said, when he told him of this fact. Mr.
Mathews went on to describe the proceedings at the com-
mission of inquiry, showing that although he was allowed to
be present, his liberty of putting imestions Was so restricted
that he could do very little goal. The rev, gentleman said,
in the course cm his evidence, that Mrs. Starr was only a re-
cent convert fioint the l'hurch of England, and WAS too
inexperieuced for the position she held.
CroSs-examined by Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. Questitned as to
the course of the proceedings at the holding of the commis-
sion and the antecedent circumstances, Inc admitted that at
his interview with tne Bishop ill ifetsiber, 1565, a statement
of the charges forwarded by the sisters against his niece was
read over to him. Shills respect to the proceedings at the
commission, unit was laid down by the bishop that counter-
charges against the other sisters were not to be entertained,
he considered that his niece's defence could not be pro-
perly raised. Specific charges were made against his
niece by the other sisters; for example, that she had
been guilty of various acts el disobedience, and milese all
the circumstances leading up to the acts complained of were
before the court, it was imp•ssible that the charges could be
properly met. He himself had not brought forward a single
counter-charge against one of Hie accusing sisters. At the
commission he Wan precluded from cross.examinlng wit-
nesses end calling witnesses OA behalf of his niece. When
lie saw the hishoo, the llamas of all the sisters that accused
his niece were read ever ti. him; but he remembered telling
the bishop that, id aniugh there wei e many accusers hut one
mind Inspired the whole.
sir. Hawkins The Convent of Mercy at Drogheda was
under your jurisdiction as parish priest of St. Mary's, and
I did you ever apply to have your niece taken in there P

Witness No ; I never broached the subject. My niece
was entitled to lie where she was, and there she should !
remain. 'the reverend mother of Drogheda, however, had
asked hlm shy he did not apply for her admission into
their convent. Of course his niece was desirous of being
admitted into an establishment of the same character
The Lord Chief Justree: Ito you mean to say that your
niece is now desirous to enter an establishment of the same
character f—Witne She certainly is, nay lord.
Mr. Patrick Swain, a brother of the plaintiff, was the
nest witness. Ile in the first place detailed the difficulties
that were thrown lii his way on the occasion id his several
visits to the II vent ot Ids seeing his sister. When finally
lie waspermitted to see her, it was with difficulty he could con-
verse with her without being overheard, subsequently he
was at the convent, and be asked to see Ida sister. Mrs.
Starr and Mrs. Kennedy were in the room, and the Mr.
Collins already referred to was also present. Mr. a Nillias
addressed hint on the subject of his visit. Witness
told him to cease from his Impertinence, arid to mind
his own business. Mr Culling replied that he was there
because he to Is a great interest in the affairs of the
convent, and then he threatened to expose the affair of
witness's sister in a local paper with which he ass con-
nected. Witness then spoke of the emaciated condition In
which lie found his sister, and the miserably insuft lent
state of her clot hing. lite final visit to the convent was at
the commencement of May, when he removed his sister.
Iler condition had t,en become worse. Ile called In Sir
Henry Cooper, a local physician, to attend her lie was
unable, however, to procure an interview for her with the
mietor apart from the presence of Mrs. Starr and Mrs.
Kennedy.

Mr. Michael Saurin, another brother of the plaintiff, de-
scribed his going to Dull on purpose to see nis sister, and
his being compell,l to return to Ireland without being able
,to see her. At that time he had not seen her for five years.
I Sir Henry Cooper, a physician and magistrate at Huff,
said he was called in upon the let of May, 1866, to see
Miss Saurin. At his interview with her Mrs. Starr and
Mrs. Kennedy were present. it appeared to him that
she was under constraint, tor he had to repeat his questions
in order to extract answers from her. He found her in a
very emaciated condition, and he advised her removal from
Hun. She subsequently remained under his charge at Hull
for some weeks, and got much better.
To the Lord I 'hid f Justice : Mies Saurin's condition was
not due to any particular ailment.
Evidence was then put in to show that efforts hal been
nix-he to procure the attendance on behalf of the plaintiff
of Dr. &Hanlon and the Rev rather saurin, but it had been
impossible to discover their whereabouts.
ro conclude the plaintiff's case a lengthened corre-
spondence was then put in. The first letter read was one
from Mrs. Starr to the bishop, requesting her Mrs. Starr's,
removal from the superintendence of the convent, on the
ground other being deficient in certain qualifications for the
duties. To this them was an answer from the bishop de-
clining to accede to her request.

Mr. Hawkins then addrepeed the jury for the de-
fendants. He said he should undertake, if he was
correctly instructed, to remAVe front the minds of the
jury the impression which the statements of the
plaintiff had moot likely made upon them, had enlisted
so much sympathy in her favour, and had created so
much prejudice against the defendants. He would
prove these statements to he untrue in many par-
ticulars, that they were grossly exaggerated as to the
remainder, and that they rested upon a very entail
foundation.
The inquiry was again adjourned.

On Wednesday, the evidence for the defence was
commenced, when—

Mrs. Mary Anne Starr, who was in the dre9s of the Order
of Afercy, entered the witness-hoz, nod hi answer to Mr.
Mellish, said : I have ceased to be mother superior of
ttut Huh B
convent since July, 1567. I entered the egot.*
. .

street ciinvent in July, 1850, anti was made a professed
sister in January, 101,3. In August, 1855, I was transferred to
('lifford, and a week after my arrival I was made superior.
That was by the authority of Dr. Briggs, the Roman Catho-
lic bishop Miss Saula entered the Iffiggot-street corivent
in November, Ids). the Book of Customs in force at
Baggot-street wail that is force at Clifford and Bull, with
the exception of one alteration intniduced tfith
respect to visitors. The new rule enjoined that the sisters
were not to make childish complaints about not seeing their
friends oftener, MA they were to abstain from referring to
conversations in the parlour and in the community room.)
She said the Baggot-street convent ceased to have any autho-
rity over her after she left Ireland. She was not more inti-
mate with Miss Snarin than with any id the other sisters
until after her protrusion. After that they were more
thrown together in consequence of their having common
duties. Miss Saurin used even then to comp.ain of not
being kindly treated by the superiors. Witness en-
deavoured to reconcile her to her life. She asked
to have Miss Snurin transferred to England be-
cause she thought she would be useful for needlework ;
she was not educ tied enough for the other departments.
she was snip! sped at teaching needlework in the schools,
and also at housekeeping. In 1850 witness saw Mrs. Saurin
in Derain. She complained of the mariner in whi:ll her
daughter had been treated at Baggst-strect, and said that
she should never go back there again. Between Ilull and
Clifford the largest number of sisters they ever had up to
1806 was twenty-four. In August, 1857, Mrs. Kennedy was
appointed mother assistant also by Dr. Briggs.
Mr. Mellish: Ilow had Miss Saurin conducted herself up
to that time

N-I-W.gtar-r; She had been particularly inobservant of the
rides, especially of the rule of silence. She learned from
Mrs. Kennedy that she was too intimath with externs, par-
t:cularly so with the young women attending the night
schools. She also complained that she was unpenctual at
choir and at meals. Witness spoke to Miss Sauna on the
subject of these eompl 'into, and she said she would try to
Improve. At the same time she denied the charges
at first, and tried to excuse herself. For about
eight months of 1858 Miss Smola was with her at hull, and
she was also with her from April, IsL9 to July, 1060. In
1850 she was housekeeper, and also taught needlework.
From witness's own observation, she could affirm that in
those years Miss Moulin was very irregular and unpunctual.
She was much given to talking to externs, and to other
disobedience to orders. lint she could not recollect the
particulars of that disobedience. Miss Saurin was likewise
guilty of insincerity—when accuse I of faults, she would
give evasive answers, and be ultimately obliged to admit her
faults. A superior of a convent expects acknowledgment of
Mulls before they are proved. At that time she was continu-
ally speaking tti Miss Salim on the subject of her faults
Miss Saurin was also guilty of breaches 44 Inc vow of poverty,
and a itness warned her that when she came to the she
would grievously repent those breaches other vow She had
articles if clothing, 'knish as hits of calm by her, which she
had ne right to. Miss mid it remained over after
making up some bedding. 13 the next place Mil. samin
Mei in her cell a book of devotions belonging to another
sister, and which she must hare known belonged to that
other sister. Miss Searle sai,l she found it. She afterwards
acknowledged her faillt. On the oceasion of Cann-
sal Wiseman's visit to the convent, Miss Samin ap-
propriated a pair or Mrs. Kennedy's boots without
leave. She repeatedly saw Miss Saurin eat oat of
meal tines; one day she saw her go into the pantry, witness
asked her a question, but she was unable to answer as her
mouth was too full, at the same time the lower part of her
face was covered will. grease. M hen 8.1111 WilS so ashamed
of herself that she almost faintet. It no. Miss Samin's
ditty to have crone to dinner when witness was present, hut
she generally found some excuse for absenting herself. She
thought at that time that some extra nourishment was rerun-
sary tor Miss Sarnia, anti it was ordered to be prepared for
her, hut she had no authority to prepare It for herself.
When refectoi ian she was partial in her distribution of
food. She used to give better food to the seniors than
to the juuiors. Witness thereupon changed the plates,
and when they were uncovered the unfair distribution
was made apparent. The seniors had the worst of it that
day. Witness certainly had a worse dinner than usual. It
was not true that Miss &min was sent back to Clifford to
get up the schools again—she was removed because other
had example to the other sisters. At Hull she had more
opportunities of gossiping with the school girls and visitors.
In 185$ she went with Miss Saute to Dublin. She saw her
friends as often as they came, and for as long as she wished
them to remain with her. Witness saw Mrs. Saurin, tilt
nothing passed between them beyond ordinary conversation.
Mr. Mellish Either in 18430 or any other time did you ask
Miss Sauna to divulge her confessions?
. . . . . .

Witness: No. 131-ICcl iss Sauda volunteered statements as to
what had passed between her and her confessor. Witness
had complained of her using too affectionate a tone in her
letters to her relations ; her language was not sufficiently
restrained. To write to her uncle, although he was a priest,
"My ever dearest Uncle," exceeded the limits of language
enjoined upon the witness when she was a novice. Miss
Saurin upon that occasion told her that she had consulted
her col Assoc upon the subject of the language she was to
employ in writing to her relatives. Witness repeated that
she had never required Miss Saurin to disclose what had
Passed in the confessional, nor hail she ever called upon any
of the other sisters to oh. an.

After other evidence had been given, the case was
again adjourned.

MANLEY v. THE GOVERNOR 8c COM-
PANY of the BANK OF ENGLAND.
This was an action brought against the defendants
for refusing to transfer some New Three per Cent.
stock standing in the name of the plaintiff in the books
of the company, whereby she had been deprived of
the stock and greatly inconvenienced for the want of
the money. The declaration also prayed for
mandamus commanding the defendants to transfer the
stock to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded Not
Guilty" and a plea that the plaintiff had not offered
the defendants reasonable evidence to enable them to
satisfy themselves that she was lawfully possessed of
and entitled to the said stock.
It appeared that the plaintiff is the widow of one
John Manley, who died on the 28th of June, 1866.
At the time of his death £3OO in the New Three per
Cent. Annuities was standing in the books of the Bank
of England in the joint names of John Manley and
Mary Ann Manley (the plaintiff). Of this SIMI 1:100
had since been sold out by the plaintiff, and a further
sum had been sold out by her, leaving a balance of
£162 its, still standing in the books of the Bank in her
name. This sum the plaintiff employed a broker,
Mr. Thomas Smith, to sell out for her in July last, alter
the Rank offices had been made aware of the fact that on
l the 12th of April, 1868, the plaintiff had married again
( with one Benjamin Manley, the nephew of her late hus-
band. InJunelast theplaintiff'ssecoiadhusbandfleserted
her, and it was then discovered by the plaintiff that
her marriage with her second husband was not a valid
marriage. First, because he was within the prohibited
degrees of affinity, being her husband's nephew; and,
secondly, because he was already married to another
woman who was alive. There was a correspondence
with the Bank officers, in which they were informed
of these facti, and a distringaii was placed on the stock
by the plaintiff's attorney to prevent Benjamin Manley,
as her husband, selling the stock. The plaintiff then
attended with her broker at the Bank and demanded
a transfer of the stock, but the officers of the Bank
refused to transfer the stock, on the ground that they
were not satisfied by evidence that the plaintiff's ac-
count of the matter was correct, and, thereupon, the
present action was brought. These facts, awl also the
marriage of Beujamin Manley with Ann Morris at St.
Mary's Church, Paddington, on the 18th of March,
1867, that Ann Morris was yet alive, and that the
same Benjamin Manley married the plaintiff on the
12th of April, 1868, were then proved.
His Lordship here indicated that the evidence that
Benjamin Manley was a married wan at the time he
married the plaintiff was proved, and that it was un-
necessary to go into the second point raised.
Sir John Karshike said the Bank would have been
perfectly satisfied if this evidence had been given to
them.
Mr. Brown was then proceeding to sum up the case,
and to contend that he was entitled to a verdict for his
client, when, at the suggestion td his Lordship,
Theparties agreed to withdra w a juror, the defendants
agreeing to transfer the stock.
Juror withdrawn accordingly.

A very singular discovery was made in the comae of the day
An album was found in the house in Russell-place. It had
contained photographs of Cooper and his brother, but both
portraits were missing. It is supposed that Cooper tore
them out to prevent copies being multiplied and used for
Ids detection. It was rumoured that jealousy was the motive
which induced Cooper to commit this horrible murder
There is not the least foundation for this rumour. Inspector
Thomson, a very astute officer, specially sent down to Poplar
by the commissioners of police, says that he cannot find
any assignable reason for the man committing the awful
crime, except that he lived on very bad terms with his wife
and her family.
The follow ing Is a description of Cooper--lie is an
engineer, 26 years of age, eve feet six inches in height, com-
plexion florid, hair and whiskers brown, and he has lost the
thumb of hi. left hand, lie was dressed in a black cloth
frock coat, blue cap with French peak.
An inquest has been held, and adjourned.