The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-11 00:00:00

Defendant : ; there are certain things they are at-
lowed to borrow, but not boots, without my leave,
The Lord Chief Justice Would you consider that a
very grievous fault?
Defendant : No ; but I did not know whether she
intended to keep them. The sisters are not allowed to
eat between meals, except in illness, and then dispensa-
tion is (ranted. On going into the pantry I saw her stand-
ing before a ham. I asked her a question, but she
could not answer me, her mouth was so full— (laughter)—
and all the lower part of her face was besmeared with
grease. (Loud laughter, in which his lordship joined.)
When she saw me she turned quite pale, and appeared
almost fainting for a few moments. Then she sprang
from the place where she was, very frighted, and looked
seriously, but I did not like to reprove her, because I
thought the confusion she had suffered a sufficient atone-
ment. Up to 1861 I remarked that when she was at table
with me she scarcely ate anything. About two ounces, or
less, would generally be the amount of food she would take
at a meal in my presence, and then she appeared to eat it
with disgust and disrelish, as if it appeared to make her
ill. I thought she was ill. She seldom came to meals with
me as a duty, but she made an excuse to stay away about
housekeeping. It was not her duty to cook. We generally
had a lay housekeeper and a servant to do that. It was
her duty to carve and have the meals served out. She
had not permission to eat at other times, but I desired a
sister to prepare things and give them to her at meals and
between meals, such as beef-tea and custard puddings,
because I was afraid she would be ill from her indiscreet
abstinence. I never gave plaintiff my permission to
prepare those things for herself. I noticed partiality
on her part in the distribution of food. It was pointed
out to me by Mrs. M`Owne at Hull in 1858, 1859, and
1860. She gave more and better food to the seniors than
the juniors. I changed them without seeing what was on
the plates.
The Lord Chief Justice : Then the seniors got the best
of it.

Mr. Mellish :No ; the worst of it. The plates were
changed. (Laughter.)
Defendant : I took one plate myself one day. t did not
that day get enough for my dinner. (Laughter.)
charged plaintiff with partiality, but she denied it.
The Lord Chief Justice : How is it served ? Would
the first cut of a leg of mutton be given to the senior, and
soon?

Defendant : No; indiscriminately. But I saw that the
person who brought in the food lifted the covers and saw
what was there, and changed it about.
The Lord Chief Justice : Did Miss Saurin do thist
Defendant : No ; another person.
The Lord Chief Justice : How do you know Miss Saurin
gave her directions to do it and to shift the plates about?
You assumed it?

Defendant : Yes, I assumed it. When I charged
plaintiff with it she admitted her partiality, and said Mrs.
Nl`Owne had no right to complain, because she made it a
point to give her a good dinner to keep her tongue quiet.
(Loud laughter). Delicate sisters have less food given to
them. I sent plaintiff to Clifford in 1858, on account
of her bad example to the sisters, and not

to get up the school, and to keep her especially from the
unauthorised intercourse with seculars. In September
1860 I took plaintiff to Dublin. She saw her relations
there as often and as long as she wished. I saw Mrs.
Saurin, but nothing particular occurred between us. We
returned to Clifford at the beginning of November. I
went then to Hull. I did not in 1800, or at any other
time, ask Miss Saurin to tell me her confession to the
priest. She once told me of her own accord the advice a
priest had given to her, and she did it to excuse herself
from disobeying me. I ccmplained that her letters to her
father and mother and her relations were too tender
in their affections. She said that she had asked her
confessor, and that he had told her she might write
affectionately to her friends. Miss Sanrin was in the
habit of volunteering her confessions until I rebuked
her. The other sisters wrote affectionately, but not so
excessive.
The Lord Chief Justice: Are not sisters allowed to
write to their parents in terms of tenderness and
affection ?

Defendant : Not in excessive terms.
The Lord Chief Justice : Then I am to take it that
if a sister writes, she may write affectionately, but not
with excessive tenderness. Do you remember bow Miss
Saurin wrote?

Defendant : No ; I don't remember anything particular.
The tone of her letters was different from those of the
other sisters.

Mr. Mellish : Now, here is one letter addressed "My
dear and very dearest uncle." Is that too strong?
(Laughter.)

The Lord Chief Justice : That uncle is a priest, and
therefore it is not writing to a secular.
_ _

Mr. Mellish : I am not so sure of that.

Plaintiff :We are taught reserve of language. The
extreme even of natural affection is to be repressed within
reasonable bounds.

The Lord Chief Justice : Do I understand that a nun is
not to love a father ancl mother as much as a secular.

Defendant : They may, and perhaps more.

The Lord Chief Justice : But not to expres3 it.

Defendant : They are not to be excessive in their mani-
festations of affection. They are taught they must be
modulated by religious reserve and decorum. I never
required her to tell me her confession. If a superior did it
she would be deposed. I never absented myself with
Mrs. Kennedy from recreation that Miss Saurin should be
left alone. Miss Saurin came from Clifford to the
retreat at Hull from 1860 to 1864. Mrs. M`ol,vne
wrote me respecting the plaintiff. Her letters have been
destroyed within the last two years. Her reports were
unfavourable. She said she was disobedient, and would do
just as she liked.

The Lord Chief Justice : You say the letters have
been destroyed within two years. When were they
destroyed?

Defendant : •Yes; about two years since the action was
commenced. They contained matters of conscience, and
I would rather suffer any penalty than allow the letters to
be produced, as they contained private matters relating to
Airs. INl`Owne. They would have been useful to us in
other respects. The action commenced on 10th Novem•
ber, 1866.

The Lord Chief Justice : I should have taken care, and
so would any judge, that those parts were not read.
doubted the expression " within two years," and that is
why I asked the question.
Defendant : The letters were destroyed early in 1867.
The defendant then went on to chronicle other misdeeds
of the plaintiff's - burning candles in the " refectory,"
which had been left by the plumber, washir nes in
her cell, &c.
The case was again adjourned.