The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-12 00:00:00

THE CONVENT CASE.

The Lord Chief Justice : Did this happen every week ?
Defendant: For several weeks. They were not expli.
cable by age or wear. Mine scarcely wanted any repairs.
In March 1865 my attention was called to plaintiff's
finger. She bad a piece of rag or paper around hex
thimble finger. I asked her whyslie wore it, and she said
she wore it because her thimble was too large. I said she
had better have a smaller one, and I gave her a bagful
from which to choose. She said that one she had woulo
do. I gave her one to wear. She afterwards said hex
finger was sore. I looked and found the finger was not sore.
I did not select a brass thimble for the purpose
of hurting her. She had a chilblain on the top cf the
first finger. I did not tell her then to wash the candle
grease off her finger. It was prior or subsequent to it, 1
don't know which. In 1564 or 1865" I had found in hex
room and other parts of the house pieces of tallow.
The Lord Chief Justice : Do you mean pieces of
candle?

Defendant : Pieces of tallow she had taken from the
candles.

The Lord Chief Justice : What sized pieces ?
Defendant : Very small. I saw the floor had been
soiled by grease being trodden on, and on finding tallow
in her cell and in the community-room, where she had
been sitting, I questioned her about it, and s!e told me
she had taken it for her chilblains. I told her she should
not have taken it, but have applied to me for a remedy,
and I would have given her one. They might take
it, but what I found fault with was, her allowing
it to fall about, and be trodden on the floors.
The witness, referring to the statement made by the plain-
tiff about the thimble, said Miss Saurin was very rude
about the matter. I required her to take one that would
fit her, and she said, " How can you persecute a poor
creature so?" That was before she said her finger was
ore.

The Lord Chief justice : What sort of thimble was she
,wearing?.

Defendant : Steel.
The Lord Chief Justice : What was the one she was
required to take ?
Defendant : Brass. They were all brass, I think.
The Lord Chief Justice : At all events it was a brass
one she was compelled to wear?

Defendant : Yes. They may be either silver, steel,
brass, or ivory. Her silver thimble was taken from her
in the previous June because it had been given to her by
an extern, Mrs. Grimston. I don't know it of my own
knowledge.

The Lord Chief Justice : She is one of the great
supporters of the institution.

Defendant : Yes ; she is one of our great benefactors.
She should have had leave of the local superior.
The Lord Chief Justice : Did you first ascertain whether
she had done so?
Defendant : No.
The Lord Chief Justice: But should you not have done
so before taking it from her?

Defendant : It is not necessary.
The Lord Chief Justice : I understood you took it
from her because it was given to her by an extern.
Defendant : Yes ; and because I did not wish her to
retain it.

The Lord Chief Justice : Why did you not wish her to
retain it?

Defendant : Because I saw in her such a spirit of appro•
priation.

The Lord Chief Justice : If a thimble is given to a sister
tor her own use, must she not keep it, but give it over for
the general community?

Defendant : When a sister receives a present she must
give it up to the superioress. She cannot retain it without
the superioress's leave.

The Lord Chief Justice : Did you take away presents
from the other sisters under similar circumstances ?
Defendant : Yes ; it is the constant practice with me,
and it is done in other convents as an exercise
of poverty. She had shown a bad temper the previous
day. Whilst she was kneeling down and acknowledging
her fault, she made an indirect charge against me. She
spoke incoherently, but it was in a tone of complaint. I
cannot give her words. She said in substance that the
sisters turned their backs upon her at recreation.
She spoke about the bread. She said it was
either bad or mouldy. She alsa spoke of per-
secution and tyranny. Mrs. Kerr and Mrs. Melligan
were present. She said she knew she could get into
another convent if she chose, but that she would not
go. She was very excited. I was not conscious of having
persecuted her. All I had done was to correct her, and
try to make her good. I told the sisters that the accusa-
tion of faults was not intended to give an opportunity
to the imperfect to give vent to their bitter feelings ;
that I had allowed Sister Mary Scholastica to speak
as she had done without interruption that they might
know her and judge for themselves. I addressed
Miss Saurin and said, "I excused you yesterday because I
saw you were in a passion, but to-day you coolly and deli-
berately give yent to your bitter feelings, and accuse me of
tyranny and persecution. You have just now said you
could get into a convent if you liked, but that you
would not go." I said, "Do go," and spoke to the effect
that we should be all very thankful if she did so.
In further examination the defendant said: About the
end of May, 80, plaintiff asked for a staylace, and in
four days afterwards she asked for another. I took her
into my private room. Mrs. Kennedy, the mother
assistant, was present. I told plaintiff to take off her
upper clothing after she had taken off her habit. I think I
put my hand upon her petticoat, and said " Take this off,"
and she did so. As she took her clothes off, I put out my
hand, and she gave them to me. She had three small
bags round her neck. In two of them she had scapulas
and some bonnet ribbons, and in the third bag she
had some devotional object. I took the bags
off her myself. She immediately said, " Don't
take my scapulas ;" and I replaced them on
her neck. She then took off her pocket. The tunic was
not disturbed by me or Mrs. Kennedy. She made a
movement to open her tunic, and I said "Don't
do that ; you must not." On taking off her
pocket, I laid it on the table. She appeared
anxious to get it back again, and said she wanted
her pockethandkerchief. I gave it to her. I then exa-
mined her packet—a very large one. I found a collection
of small things, as on a previous occasion.
Amongst
other things were two ropghly-made tablets.
She had from time to time applied for writing materials,
and I had given her them. She had not asked leave to
keep such tablets.

Some further evidence having been given, the case was,
again adjourned.

TM: RIVAL CIIRISTY MINSTItLs.—TIie long-
pending dispute between the rival troupes of Christy's
Minstrels has b?en the subject .of an action in the Bail
Court. The plaintiff:4 are the C. C. C.,
or Coloured
Comedian Christy Minstrels, and they accuse the Original
Christy Minstrels, who perform in St. James's Hall, of pub-
lishing libels upon them. They all, it seems, belonged to the
same troupe originally,but af terperforming, together for setae
years azepg.ration took place. The libel complained of by the
C. C. C. Minstrels was the warning on the playbills that
the Original Christy Minstrels never performed out of
London, and that consequently all others were impostors.
A verdict was agreed to for the plaintiffs—damages, 40s. ;
the defendants promising to withdraw the advertisement
complained of, and to state in any other notices that their
objections did not apply to tlaa C. C. C. Minstrels.

The prospect of the-cross-examination of Mrs. Starr,
one of the defendants, gave a fresh impetus on Thursday
to the excitement which the Hull convent case has aroused
at Westminster. The Solicitor-General is an adept at
this operation, which, while good fun to the spectators,
is often death to the witness. " Silver-tongued" Coleridge,
as the second law officer of the Crown is not inaptly styled,
plies the scalping-knife of cross-examination with a ruth-
less hand. Possessed in an eminent degree of the suaritcr
in modo, he deals no puny blow to the fabric of an oppo-
nent's case when ha takes their witnesses in hand. With-
out any approach to the Old Bailey manner—which may
bs effective, but is certainly unpleasant—the Solicitor.
General has a marvellous faculty for compelling
the occupant of the witness-box to give those
little details of evidence which the other side would much
prefer being concealed. Those, however, who were fortu-
nate enough to get into court yesterday were not imrue-
diatelypermitted the treat of hearing the cross-examination
of Mrs. Starr, for she had still much to say about
the alleged ill-conduct of the plaintiff through
the medium of her examination-iu-chief. referring
to the episode of the torn veil, Mr 3. Starr said :
Four or five days after I discovered the veil worn by Miss
Saurin was torn, I gave her another one, which I thought
would please her better, and I gave the torn one to another
sister, who repaired it and wore it daily for nearly three
years after. I gave her a new one, fearing she would utter'
destroy the one she was wearing.
The Lord Chief Justice : Did you say anything to her
about the tearing ?
Defendant : No, I thought it useless. When stockings
were given to her they were in good repair, but I noticed
when they came from the wash that they were torn in
many places. They could not have been so torn in the
wash, or when they were worn. They were principally
torn in the legs. Once or twice, on giving her clean
stockings, I asked her for the soiled ones. They were not
torn, and had no tears in them when they came back from
the wash. I once gave her a fine toilet towel without any
hole in it, but she sent it to the wash in so torn a con-
dition that it could not be used again. Her tunic was
given to her in good repair, and of the same quality as I
wore myself, but when it came from the wash it could
scarcely be repaired.