I 
 
 OS 
 
 I
 
 THE SECRET HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONINGHHIH GflSE 
 
 (ILLUSTRATED WITH PHOTOGRAPHIC FACSIMILES OF THE 
 
 DOCUMENTS IN THE CASE AND MANY OTHERS 
 
 THAT WERE NOT PRODUCED IN COURT.) 
 
 BY 
 
 FINN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, 381 PITT STREET. 
 1901.
 
 TO THE 
 
 HON. W. P. CRICK, 
 
 IN^RECOGNITION OF THE SPLENDID SERVICES RENDERED 
 BY HIM IN THE WORK OF VINDICATING THE HONOUR 
 
 OF DR. O'HARAN, THIS BOOK is DEDICATED BY 
 THE AUTHOR.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 THRILL of a satisfied sense of accomplished justice must 
 have been felt by every honest man and woman in the 
 Commonwealth upon reading the verdict rendered in the 
 rl notorious Coningham Case on the evening of Tuesday, 
 the 2nd April, 1901. Like the wounded snake in Pope's metaphor, 
 this trial had dragged its slow length along till suspense had 
 become pain, and the feeling of deferred expectation a monoto- 
 nous agony of the mind. This is all now happily ended, and ended, 
 too, in a manner that leaves behind it no aftermath of bitter- 
 ness, as would have been the case if the ends of justice had been 
 defeated by the raising of a sectarian battle-cry. The Petitioner 
 appealed to this unworthy prejudice to the very utmost. In his 
 address to the Jury he definitely declared, with exaggerated 
 virulence, that he was fighting "not Dr. O'Haran but the Catholic 
 Church." He enlisted in his cause the brains and the aid of the 
 bitterest traditional foes of the Faith. And the Faith has conquered 
 in the conflict. 
 
 It has been said at the street corner, at the fireside, in the tram 
 and in the 'bus and the railway-car, in the pub and in the club, in 
 the cathedral and in the church aye, and even in the conventicle, 
 that the judicial conduct of the first case was considerably more than 
 open to criticism. It was whispered, and it was also boldly pro- 
 claimed from the housetop, that his Honor, the Judge who presided 
 at the first trial, was prone to somnolency when Protestant aspects 
 of extraneous issues were adroitly and De-Wetly " slimmed " and 
 commandeered into a case, with which they had no more relation 
 than had the capture of Pretoria by the Incas of Peru with the 
 adjustment of the isothermal lines by the Barber of Seville or the 
 Marquis of Montserrat. A Cardinal, a prince of the Church founded 
 by St. Peter in the dawn of Christianity, was hectored and lectured 
 for a paltry and inconsequential absence for which he (the Cardinal)
 
 VI. THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 held official warrant and it is a matter for imperative record that 
 the judicial strictures were so obviously biassed, that one was 
 impelled by force of their extra-judicial severity to call to mind 
 W. S. Gilbert's verses in the delightful opera of " lolanthe," to the 
 effect that even " Blue Blood " and high position had some slight 
 claim on human consideration, and that hearts of purest ray serene, 
 or words to that effect, could be found in the precincts of St. James' 
 as well as in those of Seven Dials. Mr. T. M. Slattery, too, a 
 Knight of St. Gregory, was carefully and consistently snubbed for 
 lending the astuteness of his intellect to the cause of his Church. 
 In fact, no witness who came from St. Mary's Cathedral received 
 even the sweet courtesy which is so mucn a gift of Nature that it 
 costs the learned gentleman no effort to assume at least, so it is 
 said. At all events, the great outside community, the community 
 that eats and drinks and sleeps, and troubles itself very little about 
 points of theology or questions of doctrine, evinced no small measure 
 of irritation, not to say disgust, at deviations from the path they 
 considered as sacred to Justice by centuries of tradition. The great 
 people the people of the street, the mart, and the home, considered 
 that a man should not necessarily be badgered in a Court of Law 
 for the simple reason that he held the oldest of all the faiths that are 
 (and some, perhaps, with much less reason) styled Christian. But 
 further reference to the learned gentleman may here be mercifully 
 omitted. 
 
 In the second trial, Mr. Justice Owen was very good to the 
 Petitioner, without ignoring the claims of the opposing side. Con- 
 ingham was allowed a wonderful latitude in the conduct of his case. 
 The Judge was very fair, very kind, very lenient, considerate in the 
 extreme. The chemist-cricketer, in the whole course of his sporting 
 career, cannot have met a fairer umpire. Occasionally the Peti- 
 tioner's recklessness carried him " out of bounds," and the gentle 
 manner in which the Justice gave " no ball " was the admiration of 
 the Court. But not for a moment did the Petitioner receive, or 
 force, admission into reported evidence of extraneous matter touch- 
 ing definitions of doctrine or controversial theology calculated, either 
 directly or inferentially, to insult the religious convictions of millions 
 of people throughout the wide area of Christendom.
 
 INTRODUCTION. Vll. 
 
 In the first trial, insinuations were made concerning reservation, 
 and Catholic veracity under oath, that caused a spasm of pain to 
 contract the sensitive conscience of the community. To Catholics 
 all over Australia the allegation that they alone among their fellow - 
 citizens were to be held as criminal expositors of a systematic science 
 and practice of untruth was so wanton and dastardly that, although 
 felt with all the sting of irresponsible insult, the vile Machiavelian 
 suggestion awakened a pugnacity in opposition more than equal to 
 the attack. A simple and masterly reply was framed by the metro- 
 politan priesthood and signed by the leading Catholic ecclesiastics of 
 Sydney, who nobly defended the articles of faith subscribed in all 
 purity and sincerity by every Catholic whose reverence for truth is 
 no less than that, at all events, of the extensively-advertised asso- 
 ciation of the notorious Dill-Macky the Evangelical Council. The 
 last-named gentleman and his colleagues, in attack after attack, 
 launched in the columns of the daily press, published garbled and 
 amateur travesties of the teachings of Saint Alphonsus Liguori, and 
 other Catholic divines, in which vain efforts were attempted to create 
 great capital out of the supposititious confession of Anna to her 
 husband (in the citation of a case of mental reservation) as to the 
 commission of an anti-marital sin. The Respondent in the recently- 
 closed case sinned, however, against her own child. She might, 
 being seized with the enormity of her alleged infidelity, have left her 
 husband. She preferred to bastardise the child of her assumed illicit 
 amours. Which is the more moral course that of the illustrative 
 Anna, or that of Alice Stanford Coningham ? 
 
 The theological essays of the Dill-Mackay Evangelical Council 
 drew forth the following protest, alluded to above, from the priests 
 of the Metropolitan Archdiocese : 
 
 We, the priests of the city of Sydney and suburbs, in public meeting assem- 
 bled, do hereby protest against the foul calumnies and %'ile insinuations regarding 
 Catholic doctrines and practices which have been reported in the public press of 
 the colony within the past few weeks. 
 
 i. We earnestly protest against the false and malicious insinuation that 
 Catholics, who confess their sins to a priest in the sacred tribunal of penance, 
 and who receive absolution, may afterwards, in a court of justice, truly swear 
 they never committed these sins. This charge we declare to be utterly false and 
 defamatory, and in flagrant opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. 
 
 The Catholic Church teaches that, though God, in His great mercy, forgives 
 the sinner when he sincerely repents, still for all time it will be true to say he had
 
 Vlll. THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 committed that sinfnl act ; and to swear he had not committed it, because God 
 had pardoned him, would be a disgraceful act of perjury and a heinous crime. 
 
 2. We, also, emphatically protest against the vile and slanderous insinuation 
 that, whereas non-Christians are to be believed when testifying on oath, no such 
 credence is to be given to the sworn testimony of Catholics when the reputation 
 of their priests, or the interests of their Church are in question. This dastardly 
 insult we regard as a shameful libel on the honour and veracity of our Catholic 
 people. 
 
 While deeming it our duty to make this solemn protest, we willingly bear 
 testimony to the kindly feeling manifested by the great majority of our non- 
 Catholic fellow-colonists, in reference to the above insinuations. 
 
 Signed on behalf of the clergy, 
 
 J. J. CARROLL, V.G. 
 
 The entire discussion, which filled many columns, was ably 
 sustained on the Catholic side by the Rev. Father Edward Master- 
 son, S.J., of St. Ignatius College, Riverview. In one final letter he 
 thus splendidly refuted all the sophistical arguments of the Orange 
 forces. His letter, which appeared in the daily papers, and in The 
 Catholic Press of the 2nd March, is here given in full : 
 
 "The Evangelical Council" have delivered their address to the jury. In 
 their letter of the 23rd inst., they say : " With this communication on our part 
 we are content to leave the whole matter with a discriminating public." 
 
 In the peroration they ask the jury, the " discriminating public," to admire 
 the adroitness with which I permit my neighbours to be deceived. That is, they 
 select me personally as a choice specimen of the want of candour in Catholics, 
 against which they have been protesting so strongly during the past few weeks. 
 Now, as long as I am addressing a Protestant audience, I am very sensitive of 
 the character for candour which I have with them. I will, therefore, give them 
 a very simple means of judging whether I have made myself liable to the charge 
 of being favourable to deception ; whilst, by the same means, I hope to give the 
 jury selected by " the Evangelical Council " considerable help towards arriving 
 at a just verdict. I will exhibit a number of questions to " the Evangelical 
 Council," either explicitly put, or easily gathered from my letters ; I will append 
 the answer of the Council, where any answer has been given ; where no answer 
 has been given, I shall write the words, " no answer." I will then exhibit a 
 a number of questions put by the Council to me, appending in each case my answer. 
 
 MY QUESTIONS TO " THE EVANGELICAL COUNCIL." 
 
 (i.) Do you repudiate the Protestant writers quoted by me, who teach that 
 a lie is lawful in certain circumstances ? Not all of them. We admit Boswell as 
 an authority. He represents the Protestant idea of veracity. 
 
 (2.) Do you repudiate Dr. Johnson? Yes, he is a layman; he is not an 
 accredited theologian. 
 
 (3.) Then you reject Johnson, the most conscientious of men, and you elevate 
 the garrulous Boswell to be your theologian in ordinary ? No answer. 
 
 (4.) Do you repudiate Professor Sidgwick ? Yes. He does not represent 
 :any Protestant system. 
 
 (5.) Mr. Sidgwick was Professor of Ethics in the Protestant University of 
 Cambridge. The question of veracity is a purely ethical question. Do you 
 seriously assert that the Professor of Ethics in such a Protestant University 
 cannot speak for Protestants on a question that is purely ethical ? No answer. 
 
 (6.) You put forward Mr. Froude and Mr. Kingsley as shining examples of 
 veracity ? Yes. Thsy hated lying and equivocation.
 
 INTRODUCTION. IX. 
 
 (7.) Are you awars that Protestant writers, such as Mr. Gosse, Mr. Saints- 
 bury, and Mr. Lecky, caution their readers against Mr. Froude, on account cf 
 .his want of veracity ? No answer. 
 
 (8.) Are you aware that, by the unanimous consent of even Protestant 
 writers, Mr. Kingsley, also for want of veracity, stands pilloried for all time in 
 Newman's " Apologia"? No answer. 
 
 (9.) I see you appeal from the Protestant writers whom I have quoted to 
 your " accredited and authorised theologians." Who are your accredited and 
 authorised theologians ? No answer. 
 
 (10.) Does evsn one such theologian exist ? No answer. 
 
 (n.) What are his credentials ? No answer. 
 
 (12.) How far do " the Evangelical Council " hold themselves bound by his 
 doctrinal decisions ? No answer. 
 
 (13.) Is he an Evangelical Pope who can infallibly compel the assent of 
 "the Evangelical Council"? If he is, what becomes of the sacred right of 
 private judgment ? If he is not, how am I to know in what things, and how far, 
 he is the mouthpiece of Evangelical doctrine? No answer. 
 
 (14.) Do you admit that there are secrets which we have a right, often a 
 strict obligation, to keep ? No answer. 
 
 (15.) Do you admit that there are people in the world who, from whatever 
 cause, rudely interrogate us about such secrets ? No answer. 
 
 (16.) The Protestant expedient for keeping such secrets is to tell a lie ; the 
 Catholic expedient is broad or non-pure mental restriction. Neither expedient 
 commends itself to " the Evangelical Council." Well, what expedient do " the 
 Evangelical Council " propose ? No answer. 
 
 (17.) Take, for example, the case which you have yourselves selected that 
 of Anna, the adulteress. She will be murdered by her husband if she confesses 
 hsr crime. What is she to do? Protestant writers say, "Let her tell a lie." 
 Catholic writers say, " Let her have recourse to mental restriction." You will 
 not admit either expedient. Well, what advice would you give her ? -No answer. 
 
 (18.) You say that the doctrine of mental restriction saps the foundations of 
 society ? Yes. 
 
 (19.) And that it is a Jesuit invention ? Yes. 
 
 (20.) Are you aware that the doctrine was taught by saints and doctors ?.t 
 least a decade of centuries before the Jesuits came into existence ? You may be 
 technically right, but the invention of mental restriction is a minor question. 
 
 (21.) Do you think it " a minor question," a matter of no importance, to 
 falsely accuse a body of men of being the inventors of a system which, in your 
 own opinion at all events, saps the foundations of society ? Is that your lofty 
 notion of truth and justice ? No answer. 
 
 (22.) You say that the Jesuits of the i7th century committed " shameful 
 excesses " in their teaching in this matter of mental restriction ? Yes. 
 
 (23.) And that, in consequnce, they provoked the condemnation of Pope 
 Innocent XI ? Yes. 
 
 (24.) And that, after Pope Innocent's condemnation, they called to their aid 
 the species of restriction called non-pure ? Yes. 
 
 (25.) Now, as a simple fact of history, are you not aware that it was non- 
 pure mental restriction that had been taught by saints and doctors from the 
 earliest centuries, and that it was the novelty, pure mental restriction, which 
 Pope Innocent condemned ? No answer. 
 
 (26.) Will you be so kind as to cite a certain number of passages from Jesuit 
 authors as examples of these " shameful excesses ?" No answer. 
 
 (27.) Are you abls to cite even a single passage ? No answer. 
 
 (28.) Well, will you give me references to the works of these Jesuit authors, 
 and I shall bs content ? No answer 
 
 (29.) Can you give me even one reference ? No answer.
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 (30.) Will you give me the names of these Jesuit authors ? No answer. 
 
 (31.) Can you give me the name of even one ? No answer. 
 
 (32.) What are the names of those notorious Jesuit authors whom Pope 
 Innocent condemned ? No answer. 
 
 (33.) Can you give me the name of even one Jesuit who was comprehended 
 within the limits of Pope Innocent's condemnation ? No answer. 
 
 (34.) You will pardon me for pressing the point ; but, as being a Jesuit, I 
 am anxious to establish my credibility with my readers. Is it, then, a fact that 
 you have made these sweeping charges of immoral teaching without, in proof of 
 them, being able to cite a single passage from, or give a single reference to, or 
 even name a single name of, any Jesuit who taught such a doctrine ? No- 
 answer. 
 
 (35-) Do you think such conduct worthy of you, who pose as the bearers of 
 the banner of a transcendental veracity ? No answer. 
 
 QUESTIONS PUT BY "THE EVANGELICAL COUNCIL" TO ME. 
 
 (i.) Do you hold the Catholic doctrine of mental restriction? Yes. Most 
 tenaciously. 
 
 (2.) But is not a statement made under mental restriction a lie ? If the 
 statement is made under pure mental restriction, yes. If under broad or non- 
 pure, no. In the latter kind such an outward clue to the meaning which the 
 speaker intends is given as will enable a listener who is on the alert to understand 
 that the words are uttered in a restricted sense. 
 
 (3.) Is this outward clue always expressed in words? Very often it is not ; 
 but it is always discernible from the accompanying circumstances at least ; chiefly 
 from the nature of the matter, which should be of such kind as to admit of 
 secrets, and from the position of the speaker, who is driven into a corner, with 
 mental restriction as the only means of keeping a secret, which he has a right, it 
 may be a strict obligation, to keep. 
 
 (4.) Does not mental restriction cause the deception of the listener ? It is 
 never the cause of his deception ; it is not unfrequently the occasion of it. 
 
 5.) But is it not wrong to use a form of speech which will even occasion the 
 deceiving of the listener? If such a form of speech is used without a pro- 
 portionately grave reason, or what is called a just cause, yes ; if it is used when 
 there is such a just cause for using it, no. 
 
 (6.) What is necessary to constitute what you term a just cause ? That 
 depends on quite a number of considerations. For example, the greater the 
 occasion of error which the words used give to the listener, the graver the cause 
 required to justify the use of them. 
 
 (7.) You say that you may not use mental restriction without a just cause ; 
 but that you may use it where such a just cause is present ? Yes. 
 
 (8.) Is not this almost a naked stating of the Jesuit doctrine, that the end 
 justifies the means? First, the formula, "the end justifies the means," is- 
 commonly used to imply that we may do evil in order to attain some good end. 
 Secondly, the doctrine is an utterly false and immoral one. Thirdly, though so 
 often ascribed to the Jesuits by their enemies, no Jesuit writer has ever taught 
 the doctrine. Every Jesuit that has ever written on philosophy or theology has 
 taught that for the lawfulness of an action, the means, as well as the end, must 
 be good, or at least indifferent ; that is, we may not use means that are actually 
 bad. Fourthly, the Catholic doctrine of mental restriction in no way implies the 
 highly immoral doctrine that the end justifies the means. In the use of mental 
 restriction, neither end nor means is bad. The end, or object, or intention is to 
 keep a secret which I have a right, or, it may be, a strict obligation, to keep. 
 The end is good, as is clear. The means chosen is a statement made under 
 broad or non-pure mental restriction. Such a statement is the enunciation of a 
 proposition that is true. The means, too, therefore, is good, or at least indiffer- 
 ent ; that is, it is not bad. But within the domain of morals there are many
 
 INTRODUCTION. XU 
 
 actions which in themselves are good or indifferent, but which, because ot some 
 evil result which they may occasion, we may not do without a proportionately 
 grave reason. The use of mental restriction is such an act. It is not bad in 
 itself; but often it is the occasion of error to the listener. Therefore I may not 
 use it without a proportionately grave reason. That is, though, considered in 
 itself, it is not bad, yet it requires some intrinsic justifying cause to make it 
 entirely lawful in any concrete case. Such a justifying cause is the necessity of 
 keeping some important secret inviolate. If I have a right or a duty to keep- 
 some important secret, and if no other means than broad mental restriction is 
 to hand, I may use that means. My end, or object, or intention is, not to 
 deceive the listener, but to keep my secret intact. The deception of the listener 
 I may foresee and permit , but never intend . Such another action is throwing heavy 
 bricks from the roof of a house into the road below. The action is in itself 
 perfectly harmless ; but, as it may cause death or serious injury to the passers-by, 
 I may not indulge in the action without a just cause ; and the more proximate the 
 danger of death or serious injury to others, the graver the cause and the greater 
 the caution demanded. If I am living as a solitary in some remote district, the 
 mere desire for pastime or for bodily exercise will be a just cause for throwing 
 down the bricks ; if I live by a road where many people pass to and from market, 
 a graver cause and a greater caution will be demanded ; whilst, if I am a resident 
 of George-street, Sydney, a yet indefinitely graver reason and an indefinitely greater 
 caution are required to justify me in throwing down bricks from the roof of my 
 house into that crowded thoroughfare. 
 
 (9.) Is it lawful to confirm a mental restriction with an oath ? If there is a 
 just cause, yes. Otherwise, no. 
 
 (10.) If Anna is questioned by her husband about an act of adultery which 
 she has really committed, and if she knows that her husband will murder her if 
 she admits her crime, may she under oath deny her sin ? If no other means of 
 escape is open to her, yes ; she may in such straits confirm a mental restriction 
 with an oath. 
 
 (n.) Then, according to Catholic theologians, Anna may commit the gravest 
 crime against honor and chastity, and afterwards deny it under oath when ques- 
 tioned by her husband ? No Catholic theologian would teach or admit that Anna 
 may commit a grave crime against chastity. They all teach that, as I said in my 
 last letter, her adultery is " a tremendous sin"; but supposing she has com- 
 mitted the " tremendous sin," they teach that she is not bound to confess it to 
 her husband. That is all. 
 
 (12.) Would you allow the same privilege to Anna in an English court of 
 justice if her husband should seek a separation from her on the ground of her 
 adultery ? No. In such a case the English law will allow her, but it will not 
 force her, to give evidence. If she volunteers to give evidence, unlike her hus- 
 band, the presiding judge has a right to hear the truth, and Anna is bound, under 
 pain of mortal sin, to answer simply, sincerely, and without mental reservation. 
 
 (13.) Does not St. Alphonsus Liguori teach that when an accused is unlaw- 
 fully questioned, he may deny his crime under oath ? Yes, if he lives in a country 
 where the civil law grants such a privilege. Anna is quite lawfully questioned. 
 
 (14.) But does not St. Liguori say that, even when the law empowers the 
 judge to put such a question (i.t., even when the judge questions lawfully accord- 
 ing to a sufficiently probable opinion, the accused may, at least without commit- 
 ting mortal sin, deny his guilt on oath, if some terrible punishment, such as death, 
 follows his admission of guilt ? Yes ; and I am altogether in favour of that mild 
 opinion. It is a certain principle that no law made by men can impose an obli- 
 gation which is impossible for the general run of those who are the subjects of the 
 law. To extort such a confession, to be followed by such a punishment, is, in my 
 opinion, to impose such an obligation, and, therefore, in my opinion, beyond the 
 power of the law. But there is no parity or even parallel between these cases and 
 that of Anna. There is no compulsion put on Anna to give evidence at all. .She 
 volunteers to give evidence, and once she volunteers she is under grave obligation 
 to conform to the English laws of evidence. In fact, she gives evidence, not qua
 
 -XJl. THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 accused, but qua witness ; and the general teaching of Catholic theology is that 
 witnesses are bound to give evidence in a court of justice simply, sincerely, and 
 without mental restriction. 
 
 (15.) Would you allow a priest to deny on oath that he has heard a sin in 
 
 confession which, as a matter of fact, he has heard ? If there is no other means 
 of keeping the secret of the confessional, I most certainly would. The Divine 
 law forbids him to give such evidence ; and the civil law cannot compel him or 
 
 even permit him to give evidence which the Divine law manifestly commands him 
 to withhold. I do not ask Protestants to believe that such a Divine prohibition 
 exists, but I may fairly expect every unprejudiced Protestant to agree with me 
 that, if such a law exists, there is nothing shocking in saying that a human law 
 which would attempt to set it aside would , so far forth, be no law at all. Catholics 
 believe firmly that such a Divine law does exist. 
 
 (16.) A commits a crime, B alone is cognisant of it. Is it Catholic teaching 
 that B is bound not to give evidence against A ? If A lives in a country where 
 the law will not convict an accused on the evidence of one witness Yes. If A 
 lives in a country where the law will convict on the evidence of one witness 
 No. In that case B would be strictly bound to give evidence, if the law called 
 on him to do so. 
 
 (17.) Is St. Liguori meant only for Italians and for the i8th century, or is he 
 not meant for all places and for all times ? So far as he enunciates eternal and 
 immutable principles, he is meant for all places and for all times. Otherwise 
 No. Indeed, to say or to think that he is would be absurd. Many things which 
 are quite lawful in one place are, for wise and just reasons, forbidden in another 
 by positive human legislation, and many things that were quite lawful in St. 
 Liguori's time have since been forbidden by positive human legislation. 
 
 (18.) How, then, are confessors to learn in what things they may follow the 
 teaching of St. Liguori, and in what things they may not follow him ? - They 
 learn it partly from reading more modern writers in moral theology, but chiefly, 
 I should say, from the oral teaching of their professor of moral theology during 
 their student days. 
 
 (19.) Why did you shelter yourself behind the contention that the Roman 
 civil law had vitiated the mind of the Church ?--! never even dreamt of putting 
 forward any such contention. I never said that the Roman laws of evidence had 
 any vitiating tendency whatever. On the contrary, I expressly stated that they 
 were based on the soundest principles of Christian justice and charity. The 
 enactment which refused to condemn an accused on the evidence of one witness 
 -was meant to save men from unjust defamation. That which empowered an 
 .accused to deny his crime under oath was meant to reduce perjury to the 
 minimum. It must always be remembered that a statement made under broad 
 mental restriction is a true proposition, and to swear to a proposition that is true 
 can never be perjury. Words are not natural, but conventional signs of the 
 ideas which they signify. They have precisely the meaning that men agree they 
 shall have. If the phrase " not guilty " is generally understood merely to mean 
 I will not confess my crime, it expresses a perfectly true statement, whether the 
 accused is really innocent or no. In English law, the words have that meaning 
 when made without sanction of an oath, but not when made under sanction of an 
 oath. Therefore, a guilty person does not tell a lie when, under English law, 
 he puts in the plea " not guilty." If he affirmed such a plea on oath, he would 
 be guilty of falsehood and perjury, simply, and only, because no such convention 
 is acknowledged under English law. If the law acknowledged such a convention 
 there would be no falsehood and no perjury. Now, under the Roman law such 
 a convention was acknowledged. It was quite well understood by all parties 
 concerned that " not guilty," even when said under oath, only meant I will not 
 confess my crime, or, I am not guilty of a crime which I am bound to confess 
 here. Nobody was deceived, and no harm could be done to society from the 
 toleration of such a formula. 
 
 (20.) Are you aware, though, that the Roman civil law knew nothing of, 
 .much less permitted, mental restriction on oath ? I am aware of nothing of the
 
 INTRODUCTION 7 . Xlll. 
 
 kind ; but I am aware, and perfectly certain of the opposite. It is a notorious 
 historical fact that even in England, and even in post-Reformation times, in the 
 reigns of Elizabeth and James I., counsel pleading for Catholics asserted their 
 right to deny on oath the accusations made against them, and that they based 
 their plea on the provisions of the Roman civil law. Here we have another 
 example of what I was reluctantly compelled to characterise in my last letter as 
 "the collateral ignorance " of "the Evangelical Council." There is scarce a 
 department of knowledge which they have invaded in this controversy in which 
 they have not made blunders of which an intelligent school-girl would be justly 
 ashamed. 
 
 I hope that the two examinations which I have drawn out may prove in- 
 structive, if not interesting, to my readers. The charge made by " the Evangelical 
 Council" against Catholics is want of candour and straightforwardness. The 
 Jesuits, in particular, were singled out as men who, by their training, revel in 
 " shameful excesses " in the matter of mental restriction. Well, I have set forth 
 my own evidence on the one side, and the evidence of " the Evangelical Council " 
 on the other, and I leave it to the public to say on which side is the preponderance 
 of candour, and on which is the preponderance of reticence, of shuffling, and of 
 that falsehood which, of all others, is most sinful the bearing of false witness 
 against one's neighbour. 
 
 Of course, the admission of certain extraneous evidence in the 
 first trial was unquestionably responsible for this arrayal of opposing 
 forces, and there is no doubt that Coningham obtained a factitious 
 claim upon sectarian sympathy by reason of the pragmatic attitude 
 taken up by the Judge who heard the first case. With the retire- 
 ment from the proceedings of Mr. Justice Simpson all this admission 
 of evidence relating to questions of theological interpretation was 
 justly barred, and only evidence allowed that had genuine bearing 
 on the issues set forth in the citation of the trial. 
 
 To all unbiassed minds Arthur Coningham has been used as 
 the mere cat's-paw to pull Orange chestnuts out of the fire. The 
 case, however, was a boomerang that recoiled on the head of those 
 who supported its thrower, and its recoil has badly bruised the 
 reputation of a leading Protestant, a successor in office of historic 
 old Dr. Lang, and a former Moderator of the Presbyterian 
 Assembly. Evidence given by the Petitioner's erstwhile friend, 
 James Exton, conclusively showed that a certain clergyman of well- 
 known sectarian aggressiveness, Dill-Macky, to wit, allowed his 
 house to be made use of as a meeting-place of persona who had no 
 direct interest in the case, although they had a sectarian anirnui 
 against one of the parties concerned in it, and there a jury-list wa 
 rigged, and jurors " struck " who might be depended upon to cast a 
 blind verdict on behalf of the Petitioner, and, therefore, indirectly
 
 TilV. THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 on behalf of the denominational sectaries by tradition and custom 
 opposed to the Catholic Church. Petitioner's own statement 
 showed that he was both the guest and the coached pupil of this 
 murky light of Protestantism, whose basic article of belief, like that 
 of so many of his kind, appears to be that no good can come out of 
 Rome, or the Church founded by Christ and governed by St. Peter 
 .and his successors. Coningham was a most useful tool for the 
 promulgation of a crusade of obloquy by the bigots of a sectarian 
 convention. He was known to be an irritable, excitable, altogether 
 eccentric, and a mentally unbalanced person, whose buffooneries on 
 the cricket -field were the regret of his friends and the satisfaction of 
 his enemies. His behaviour on the occasions of both trials was 
 sometimes that of a clever actor who rises well to the demands of 
 his part ; sometimes that of a man whose success in simulation 
 destroyed his sense of proportion. With a different training 
 Coningham might have made a clever lawyer in criminal practice 
 of the Bow-street order ; but his avidity in seizing every passing 
 point often spoilt the coherency of his main argument, and plunged 
 him into inconsistencies which he was powerless to adjust. Never- 
 theless, he was well adapted to the uses he was intended to serve 
 by those who pulled the strings in the virulent anti- Catholic 
 conventicles. 
 
 But, as previously indicated, much preliminary work had to be 
 done, and an atmosphere prepared in which the " spirits " could be 
 induced to manifest themselves congenially. The proceedings 
 against Solicitor E. R. Abigail were, therefore, eagerly laid hold 
 upon as a pretext for sounding the initial blast calling upon the 
 adherents of Orangeism to prepare for an assault on the citadel of 
 Rome. Then hundreds of columns (generally speaking) were 
 poured into the daily journals of Sydney and Melbourne, discoursing 
 upon and discussing points of Catholic doctrine and teaching. In 
 short, no effort was spared to cast doubt, and all the odium 
 theologicum, upon the question of the veracity of Catholics on their 
 oath and in the witness-box. And when the case did again come 
 on, no pains were neglected to force into the evidence a re-discussion 
 of the weary, dreary, useless and altogether irrelevant " points " 
 raised by the Petitioner (at the instigation of his Orange advisers) 
 during the preceding hearing by Mr. Justice Simpson. Coningham
 
 INTRODUCTION. XV. 
 
 had now, however, a. different man to deal with a Judge who would 
 allow him every latitude within the limits of the case ; but no license 
 outside of its circumscribed boundaries. 
 
 Mr. Want, K.C., in his summing up, compared this case in 
 some of its aspects to the great military scandal of the century, the 
 Dreyfus Trial. There certainly was a revolver in each instance ; 
 though, happily, Sydney escaped, in any of her citizens, even in the 
 case of Mr. John Want, K.C., the experience of the Maitre Labori 
 shot at and wounded for doing his duty. But the revolver seems 
 to have been a favourite weapon with Protestant clergymen in New 
 South Wales. It will be remembered that the notorious Reverend 
 James Clarke had such a lethal weapon in his possession, and that 
 he was forcibly deprived of it by the direction of the late Mr. 
 Justice Windeyer, whereupon Clarke obtained a verdict against the 
 Government, assessing ^"300 damages an amount, however, which 
 was attached for costs incurred in the case. Coningham's revolver, 
 again, is quite a significant weapon. It was, according to Exton's 
 evidence, a presentation from the Protestant cleric, Dill-Macky. 
 Rumour had it that the revolver was quickly replaced by another 
 supplied by misguided sympathisers of the Petitioner whose zeal 
 outran their discretion. 
 
 But there is another, and more painful, aspect of the recent 
 trial. It afforded the zealots of Orangeism an opportunity of 
 resurrecting the dry bones and decayed shroud of that miserable 
 effigy of the past, yclept " The Kiama Ghost " a sectarian spectre 
 of local manufacture designed to meet the needs of a political party, 
 and historically and unpleasantly associated with the memory of a 
 dead statesman to whom Australia owes some benefits of a less 
 ignoble origin. These wretched attempts to foment sectarian bitter- 
 ness are cowardly and anti-social in the extreme. The wounds may 
 heal, but their cicatrices remain to remind us of their past painful 
 existence ; and the man who wantonly experiments for his own ends 
 on prejudice or bigotry is an enemy for whom no punishment can 
 be too severe. In our recent experience we saw that no insinuation 
 was too vile, no invention too subtle, no diplomacy too devious, no 
 finesse too Machiavelianly suggestive, to wound the Catholic cause 
 and reputation, and insult the memory of the dead.
 
 XVI. THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Apart from the great questions of collusion, conspiracy to- 
 blackmail, and perjury, raised as counter charges by Counsel against 
 the Petitioner and Respondent, the Coningham Case throws quite 
 an original light on a mother's duty to her offspring. Throughout 
 the trial the Petitioner exhibited a coarseness in examination of 
 witnesses, and a lack of delicacy in phrase as in manner, equalled 
 only by the brazen effrontery with which the Respondent testified 
 to her own shame. The Petitioner pilloried the mother of his 
 acknowledged children in the full view of a cynical and sneering 
 public. The Respondent, with the cold immobility of an image of 
 stone, endured the scathing and remorseless fire of a fierce cross- 
 examination as though clad in the triple mail of immaculate virtue, 
 and coolly asserted the bastardy of her own flesh and blood. 
 Questions were asked by her husband (who was equally culpable in 
 asking them) that might have been expected to revolt even the last 
 vestige of outraged modesty, the last sense sacred to expiring 
 womanhood, in her breast. The Judge, no doubt shocked at the 
 infamy of such queries, sympathetically informed the Respondent 
 that she was not expected to reply. With a callousness impossible 
 to fathom, the lady, however, stared Medusa-like around the Court, 
 and complaisantly signified her willingness to answer, without even 
 so much as a shadow of a spasm of embarrassment. Mr. Justice 
 Owen is a man of great judicial experience ; but, nevertheless, he 
 seemed affected, and was observed to bend his head and place his 
 hand over his eyes with an unconscious action, as that of one 
 deeply ashamed of some specimens of humankind. 
 
 The Coningham suit in divorce was a terrible and individually 
 degrading case to the man who instituted it, to the Respondent (his 
 connubial conspirator), and to all those who aided and abetted them. 
 They stand without parallel in the annals of history. Had they 
 succeeded in their nefarious efforts of conspiracy and blackmail 
 against the name and fame (dearer to him than life) of their high- 
 placed victim, who among men could count on safety from the 
 infernal machinations of like abominable and unscrupulous plotters ? 
 The priest, by virtue of his holy office, is brought into the most sacred 
 relations with the members of his flock. A foundationless charge 
 which, by the force of circumstances, might be successfully laid
 
 INTRODUCTION. XV1U 
 
 against one, would imperil the reputation and the high honour of 
 the whole hierarchy ; and Dr. O'Haran deserves the thanks of every 
 man in the community for the undaunted courage, and calm reliance 
 on the justice of his cause, with which he faced the scoundrels who 
 assailed that noble heritage of woman, of man, and (by virtue of his 
 peculiar isolation), to a greater extent, of the priest HONOUR ! 
 
 But personal honour, in the minds of the community, must give 
 place to the larger issues of national purity. The development of 
 the case showed that Dr. O'Haran was not upon his trial to a tithe 
 of the extent as was " Trial by Jury." Sectarian influences were 
 darkly hinted, and keen pain and mordant scandal shook the nerves 
 and seared the consciences of men sharply sensitive of public 
 honour. 
 
 But let the pain and the scandal pass ! The Jury, at least in 
 this particular instance, justified its existence as an institution and 
 an integral part of Australian as of British Law. The unfounded 
 insinuations that the partisans of Coningham bruited about, to the 
 effect that sectarian bigotry and traditional policy against the 
 Church of Rome would prove in the issue superior to the exalted 
 ideal that Britons and Australians (the sons of Britons) cherish of a 
 pure and undefiled fount of Justice, have been falsified. The Judge, 
 the Jury, and the Counsel who conducted the case, are all to be 
 sincerely congratulated upon the maintenance of the noblest of 
 national trusts THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATIONAL HONOUR !
 
 , aN"-<?a
 
 THE ABIGAIL EPISODE. 
 
 CONINGHAM, as is known, chose for the repository of his 
 legal confidence the young attorney, Mr. E. R. Abigail, nephew of 
 the illustrious Orangeman, Francis Abigail, who, during a memor- 
 able election campaign many years ago, wrote to one of the election 
 engineers of the L.O.L. that the forthcoming election would be 
 "more popery than Fiscal" on account of the fact that " dibbs 
 Dined with cardinal moran." Poor FYancis, one time Minister for 
 Mines, had a long "spell" from political life and from the worries 
 and troubles of the writing of Ministerial minutes and the matter 
 of finance. Some weeks ago he once more emerged as the 
 selected candidate for the L.O.L. in the Federal Senate, but he 
 quite as quickly returned to his old seclusion. More will be 
 unnecessary regarding this great Orange luminary, and though 
 the fact of his pre-eminence in the Orange Lodge may not have 
 influenced his nephew, it certainly seemed to have a significant 
 meaning for Coningham. Coningham, to put it plainly, worked 
 the Orangemen for all they were worth, and starting in alpha- 
 betical order, the name of "Abigail" was his first trick-card. 
 But '* Little Ernie " Abigail had not proceeded far when an 
 information was laid against him of attempting to persuade a man 
 named Thomas Coogan to give evidence of the occurrence of 
 certain events which, as far as Coogan was concerned, never did 
 occur, but which were most material in corroboration of Mrs. 
 Coningham's evidence in support of her husband's case on his 
 petition for divorce from her. Mr. Abigail was locked up about 
 the lunch hour of November 2oth, and when the Court sat in the 
 afternoon was brought in and formally charged. Whatever 
 doubt may have prevailed as to the attitude Dr. O'Haran would 
 assume was very speedily set at rest, for, dressed in his clerical 
 cassock, and accompanied by one of the Cathedral priests and his 
 legal advisers, he attended at the Court and occupied a seat at the 
 table. Mr. H. A. Moss made his entry into the famous case as 
 the representative of his brother solicitor. In the subsequent pro- 
 ceedings it was made clear that the first and most prominent 
 feature of the impending divorce suit was to lose no limelight 
 effect. Many mysterious personages had already been impressed 
 into the service. Men with tall hats, and long coats, and gaiters, 
 mixed with the motley crowd in unusually familiar style, and quick 
 eyes and cautious tongues were the order of the day. So far as 
 the accused solicitor was concerned, he was not in the least 
 worried, and walked the floor of the Court with an air of com- 
 posure, if not absolute disdain. He had secured the services of
 
 2 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mr. J. C. Gannon, who was instructed by Mr. H. A. Moss and the 
 accused himself. Mr. J. H. Want, Q.C., and Mr. A. G. Ralston, 
 with Mr. T. M. Slattery instructing, were present in the interests of 
 Dr. O'Haran. 
 
 The hearing- of the evidence at the Court extended over 
 several days, the presiding Magistrate being Mr. Mair, S.M. 
 Unusual interest was displayed, and it was a matter of free 
 comment that the party feeling created by the bare announcement 
 of the impending divorce suit had already assumed very noticeable 
 dimensions, with very little indication of a diminution. Coningham 
 was there, too, on those sunny November days, airing himself in the 
 asphalt yard, and acting the part of a much injured person brought 
 into a disagreeable situation greatly against his will. He had 
 little or nothing to say to Abigail in the vicinity of the Court, 
 reserving his confidences for the private ear of the latter in his 
 private office, where, it was stated, a new "shingle" was to be 
 shortly hung out, so that "Little Ernie" would be dis- 
 tinguished from his brother, Mr. James W. Abigail. All of this, 
 of course, was disowned by Mr. E. R. Abigail, but the fact remains 
 that aggressive signboards and plates proclaim that the young 
 and energetic attorney is still battling in the dusty legal 
 arena. 
 
 Mr. E. R. Abigail lives in Point Piper Road, a few doors trom 
 Oxford Street, in a nice two-storeyed residence next to the 
 Paddington Police Station. Not far away, within less than 100 
 yards, in fact, resided Mr. Thomas Coogan, a most particular 
 friend. They had business transactions together, and had got on 
 so well that there was nothing extraordinary about Abigail 
 dropping into Coogan's shop and saying " Good night, Tom," nor 
 in Tom responding with a " Good night, Ernie." The existence 
 of this neighbourly feeling came out in evidence, but Mr. Abigail 
 stated that beyond " knowing" Coogan in a certain matter which 
 had some time previously occupied the attention of another Court, 
 he knew nothing that would warrant his reposing confidence in 
 Coogan ; in fact, Mr. Abigail would not have been at the time of 
 the Court case a very satisfactory person for Coogan to have 
 asked for a reference. That was, as stated, in the latter part of 
 November, and in order to show how the minds of even our great 
 lawyers change in a short space of time, it is only necessary to 
 quote the following : 
 
 Messrs. Hardie and Gorman, 67 Elizabeth Street, 
 
 Auctioneers, ist November, 1900. 
 
 Pitt Street, City. 
 Dear Sirs, 
 
 Re Coogan. 
 
 I received your letter herein. I think you will be quite safe in leasing 
 to Coogan, he is a man of good capabilities and credit, and should have no- 
 difficulty in succeeding in Paddington. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 (sgd.) E. R. ABIGAIL.
 
 THE ABIGAIL EPISODE. 3 
 
 This letter showed, therefore, that at the time Mr. Abigail did 
 possess a more than superficial knowledge of Coogan, for had he 
 not he would hardly have been so regardless of his standing in the 
 legal profession as to thus commit himself to the firm of Hardie 
 and Gorman. However, it was this same Mr. Coogan who 
 brought all the trouble on his benefactor, Mr. Abigail, in connec- 
 tion with the serious charge levelled against him, and Coogan's 
 story was a rather romantic one. Under the soothing influence of 
 a choice Havana, Coningham's solicitor had, so Coogan said, 
 approached him on the serious matter of the trial. He knew 
 Coogan was a man he could trust, and ask for help without running 
 much risk. That was what Coogan said ; Abigail said it was 
 not so. However, according to Coogan's evidence, a meeting was 
 arranged at Coogan's shop for the next night. Coogan could not, 
 he said, be a consenting party to bringing up faked evidence 
 against a priest of the Church of which he, with all his kindred, 
 was a member, and he accordingly decided to set a trap tor Mr. 
 Abigail. In pursuance of this proposal he interviewed some 
 people, and an impromptu reception committee was formed to meet 
 the rising young advocate a few evenings later on, November 16. 
 It is not necessary at this stage to state who were the members of 
 that party, but when they had been posted in their positions, two 
 \vere outside a window of a dining-room, and two were in the 
 neighbourhood of a conveniently opened door leading to the 
 kitchen, while Coogan was seated at the table with an air of happy 
 unconcern worthy of the lord and master of half the landed 
 property of the United Kingdom. To note the arrival of Mr. 
 Abigail, and to give him the " Good night, Ernie ; come in, the 
 Missus is out and there's nobody at home but me," was a mere 
 detail, and Mr. Abigail at once accepted the invitation and made 
 himself as much at home as De Rougemont on the back of his 
 famous turtle. Of course this is what Coogan said, and all or most 
 of which Mr. Abigail denied. When they had settled down to 
 business according to Coogan's evidence Mr. Abigail made his 
 proposal. The programme was concise and business-like. Its 
 principal features were the enlistment of the services of Mr. 
 Thomas Coogan in the matter of the production of evidence of a 
 very important nature, to wit, corroborative ; the convincing of 
 the jury of the unanswerable charges laid at the door of the bad 
 man (sic) and the triumph of the virtuous Coningham over the 
 wicked wrecker of his home and happiness Stop ! there was 
 something else there was the distribution of the reward for the 
 great labour involved in the sacred cause of Justice. It must be 
 carefully noted that this is, in effect, what Coogan said, and had 
 that great picnic on the high seas taken place it would have been 
 due to the imaginative genius of the aforesaid Mr. E. R. Abigail. 
 And what a picnic it was to be. But the picnic did not come off. 
 
 It was in this case that mention was first made of poor old 
 John Kelly, who had died some time before. Abigail had, according
 
 4 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 to Coogan, asked him if he knew an old man named Kelly, who 
 used to work at the Priests' house, and he replied that he remem- 
 bered him slightly. Abigail said, " I want you to say, from what 
 he told you, you saw Dr. O'Haran and Mrs. Coningham visit a 
 certain house." Coogan said that Kelly might deny it, but 
 Abigail replied, " He can't, he's in his place ; he's dead and can't 
 contradict you : if he were alive I might have got him as a witness." 
 This all took place in the preliminary interview, and, amongst 
 other matters, which Coogan swore formed part of the conversa- 
 tion, was the interesting subject of ^500, and the rather unwhole- 
 some business of " smelling rats." 
 
 While Coogan and E. R. Abigail were, in this comfortable way, 
 discussing bargains and terms, the former told Abigail that he was 
 not going to look to Coningham for his " cut " out of it. Abigail 
 replied that he would not have to look to Coningham as he (Abigail) 
 was the solicitor, and whatever the damages were they must come 
 to him. " My costs alone," said he, " will amount to six hundred 
 'quid ' if all goes well. . . . You know, Tom, I never go back on a 
 'pal.' . . . I've been told in town that three of us are going to be 
 ' pinched ' over this matter. Whatever you do, don't breathe it to 
 a living soul especially Mossie." They talked of the witnesses 
 they were going to bring, of the signboard with " E. R. Abigail " 
 on both sides so that the public wonld see it was little " E.R." 
 instead of "that fool of a brother" of his. They talked of presenting 
 Mrs. Coogan with ^100, and the excursion, and the changing of 
 Coogan's name lest he might be shot. Then they talked of 
 Counsel, and Abigail mentioned the names of two leading barris- 
 ters .whom he had selected on account of their being Presbyterians, 
 and said that it had cost him jo to fee them. After the excursion 
 Mr. E. R. Abigail was going to set up in money-lending a kind of a 
 " L.O.L.-ly Pop Shop " as the Bulletin's patented phrase in the 
 great banking days of Francis Abigail suggested. There was 
 great genius displayed in all this fine programme, and whether it 
 came from E. R. Abigail and he says it did not, or from Coogan, 
 and he says it did not it discloses a modest but most imaginative 
 intellect, and a determination not to stick at trifles. 
 
 Then the matter of squaring was considered, and the very 
 reasonable item of ^"1500 was incidentally mentioned as the 
 amount which the other side would take from Dr. O'Haran to 
 square the case the recollection of the old proverb that a bird 
 in the hand was worth two in the bush having apparently prompted 
 this magnanimity. The matter of the selection of the Jury was 
 gone into, and after having expressed the wish that the Co- 
 respondent had been the Cardinal instead of Dr. O'Haran, as 
 Mr. Coogan told the Court, Mr. E. R. Abigail departed for the rest 
 of the evening, and the four persons alluded to followed soon after. 
 
 Mr. Gannon, in a severe cross-examination, sought to show 
 that Coogan was a very undesirable person to be in decent
 
 THE ABIGAIL EPISODE. 5 
 
 company, that he had approached Abigail in connection with this 
 case because he wanted to " get even " on Dr. O'Haran for trying 
 to get "a tenner" from him to marry him, and that instead of 
 paying that amount he was married afterwards for a pound. He 
 said that he had gone to Mr. Slattery to give information out of a 
 pure sense of duty and justice. He had gone to Abigail's office 
 after seeing Mr. Slattery. He denied that he had told anyone he 
 was on "a good thing," and that he had " got Abigail as sweet 
 as a nut." 
 
 John Prenderville gave evidence of what he heard from the 
 window, and, in addition to what Coogan told the Court, said that 
 Abigail wanted Coogan to go and see Langton and Miss Hennessy 
 at the Cathedral, and to offer Langton ^"1000. He was also to 
 make enquiries about the famous window-blinds and the couch in 
 Dr. O'Haran's room. Abigail also said that it would be a big 
 advertisement for him (Abigail) all over the Colonies, and the 
 Church of England people would stick to him. Amongst other 
 more or less interesting facts, sworn by this witness to have come 
 to light that evening, was the fact that Coningham had been 
 coached how to act in the witness-box, and instructed to weep 
 copiously at the right moment. He saw Abigail write down 
 something on a piece of paper. 
 
 Mr. Patrick F. Meagher, clerk to Mr. T. M. Slattery, and son 
 ot the Hon. John Meagher of Bathurst, gave evidence of Coogan 
 calling and giving information, and as Mr. Slattery was in Mel- 
 bourne, he went to Coogan's house on the night in question, and 
 heard a good deal of what passed. He corroborated the evidence 
 of the other witnesses in substance. He mentioned that during 
 the conversation between Coogan and Abigail money seemed to be 
 no object. He was, he told Mr. Gannon, proud to have been 
 there, and proud of saving Dr. O'Haran from such an infernal 
 plot. 
 
 George Williams gave evidence in corroboration, as did also 
 Henry James Grimshaw, a private inquiry agent, who said he had 
 been employed to watch the proceedings in the Coningham Case. 
 He said that during the conversation Abigail told Coogan that Dr. 
 O'Haran gave Mrs. Coningham his photo the first time of meeting, 
 and that she would not take ^"1000 to square the case. She was 
 true to them, and would be subpoenaed the last thing. He heard 
 Abigail ask for some paper and saw him write something down, 
 and he also heard him say to Coogan, " I don't think I will take 
 your declaration now, because I don't know what witness you will 
 have to corroborate." 
 
 Mr. Gannon, on the close of the case for the prosecution, said 
 that Mr. Abigail had been charged with making a false statement 
 on oath, but there was nothing to show that the evidence proposed 
 to be given was false, all that was shown was that it was sought
 
 O THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 to get evidence from two persons at St. Mary's. His Worship 
 thought there was a case to answer and the accused was formally 
 charged. 
 
 Ernest R. Abigail thereupon went into the box, and being 
 sworn, told the court that he was a solicitor, a Bachelor ot Arts, 
 and a Bachelor of Law of the Sydney University. He said that it 
 was Coogan who first mentioned the Coningham Case and wanted 
 to be a witness in it ; all that would be required would be to fix 
 him up in a few points so that he could not be tripped up in cross- 
 examination. He (Abigail) said he would have nothing to do with 
 him and that he would not imperil his liberty for fifty Coninghams. 
 Coogan then offered to make a statutory declaration, but he replied 
 that it was no use, that he would have nothing to do with him. He 
 said that, some evenings after, Coogan again broached the subject 
 saying that he wanted to get even on Dr. O'Haran, and then he 
 told him about how he was married. He, Coogan, left him saying 
 that he would see him at the end of the week as he wanted to put 
 four small debt summonses in his hands. He saw Coogan on the 
 i6th of November, and as witness was looking for a Mrs. May to 
 serve a subpoena on her, Coogan told him to come to the shop that 
 night as Mrs. May would be there, so he went with a clerk named 
 Pearce and they stood opposite, and when Mrs. May came out of 
 Coogan's shop and got on a 'bus Pearce got up alongside of her, 
 and he (Abigail) went into the shop, and at Coogan's invitation 
 entered the dining-room. He had gone there with Pearce to point 
 Mrs. May out to him. Coogan had previously said that he would 
 speaktoMrs. Mayabout acasethat he (Abigail) had inhand. Witness 
 told the court that this was what the conversation turned on from the 
 start, and not on the Coningham Case as Coogan had said. When 
 they did get to talk of the Coningham Case it was Coogan who 
 brought it up, and amongst other things asked, " How is 
 Coningham, they tell me he is a bit 'ratty'?" He (Abigail) 
 replied, " The poor unfortunate fellow does not appear to be 'ratty,' 
 and you would not say so if you saw him sob and cry as I do. He 
 had a fit in my office one day and I thought he would die." Coogan 
 said, "Do you think he will break down in giving evidence?" 
 Witness replied, " He might, because it is a terrible trial." He 
 (Abigail) said that in further conversation he told Coogan that 
 they had subpoenaed Langton and Miss Hennessy, and said that 
 he wanted to find out who repaired the blinds in Dr. O'Haran's 
 rooms, and who removed the c.ouch. He denied in toto the 
 conversation alleged to have taken place, and swore that he had 
 never attempted to induce Coogan to make a false statement against 
 Dr. O'Haran. He thought Langton and Miss Hennessy could give 
 evidence, but he did not suggest to anybody to get them to give 
 false evidence against Dr. O'Haran. He said that when arrested 
 he offered to allow the detectives to search his papers, and that he 
 told them that his arrest was the result of a conspiracy.
 
 THE ABIGAIL EPISODE. 7 
 
 The young solicitor had a very lively time of it under the keen 
 cross-examination ot Mr. Want. He said that he knew Coogan 
 to be mixed up in giving evidence in criminal cases, and believed 
 him to be a blackmailer and a man prepared to sell his evidence to 
 destroy Dr. O'Haran, and yet, knowing this, invited him on that 
 night to come and have a drink. Asked if he, a Solicitor of the 
 Supreme Court, a Bachelor of Arts, and a Bachelor of Law, thought 
 it consistent with his position to ask Coogan to drink with him, he 
 answered simply " I did it." He denied collectively and separately 
 the various passages of the conversation sworn to by the four 
 witnesses, and said that the reference to money was with regard to 
 the amount of damages, ^~i,ooo or ^"1,500, which he thought 
 Coningham would obtain. He was questioned about his being 
 called up by the Law Institute on two occasions, but explained that 
 it had been at the instance of his brother. 
 
 After further examination the case was closed and the accused 
 committed for trial, Mr. Gannon announcing that he had several 
 witnesses to call, but would leave that to the higher Court. Mr. 
 Want applied to have the case sent to the Criminal Court, but Mr. 
 Gannon contended that his client was entitled to have the case 
 committed to the next Court of Quarter Sessions, commencing on 
 December 3rd. This course was adopted. 
 
 At the higher Court the case was heard some time after the 
 first divorce case had concluded. The Jury having listened to the 
 evidence for the prosecution, acquitted Mr. E. R. Abigail without 
 calling upon him for his defence. On a report by Mr. Beaver, Clerk 
 of the Peace, on some evidence which transpired at the trial, Mr. E. 
 R. Abigail was recently called before the Full Court, but everything 
 having been satisfactorily explained to their Honors the explanation 
 was accepted. That was the last occasion on which Mr. E. R. 
 Abigail appeared in the Coningham Case, or in cases arising from it, 
 save as a witness in the Police Court affair, Coniugham v. Exton. 
 As far back as January 5th, 1901, he notified Mr. Slattery that he 
 had " withdrawn absolutely from the case."
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 
 
 THE people of Sydney have always been lovers of excitement and 
 sensation, at any cost. They give promise, indeed, of becoming like 
 the old Roman populace, whose chief reason for living was to attend 
 circuses. Something in the Sydney climate not unlike that of 
 Rome something, perhaps, in the character of the people them- 
 selves, and something more in the general restlessness of the age,, 
 will probably account sufficiently well for this peculiar temperament. 
 Anyhow, the inhabitants of this favoured city have been in luck for 
 many months past. 
 
 What with departures of Contingents, and Commonwealth Cele- 
 brations, and Federal Elections, and minor glories, they have revelled 
 in excitement. But it is doubtful whether any of the events men- 
 tioned stirred their feelings as deeply as did the Coningham Case. It 
 was not a temporary burst of glory, like the others, but an abiding 
 entertainment a sensational story that continued from day to day, 
 and increased in interest as it proceeded. The interest was also of a- 
 deeper and more serious sort than that usually manifested by the 
 public, as was justified by the nature of the case. The Court was 
 crowded day after day, and the police had to guard the doors in order 
 to preserve breathing-room for the folk packed inside. Those who 
 could not obtain admittance lined the pavement outside in hundreds, 
 and waited patiently, hour after hour, to hear the latest news of the 
 progress of the trial. Persons who came out of the Court from time 
 to time were laid hold of and eagerly questioned. The smallest 
 morsel of information was thankfully received. 
 
 ftj.r. Justice G. B. Simpson, Judge in Divorce, decided upon 
 taking the case himself. The rules of the Supreme Court of New 
 South Wales give the entire control of suits in divorce to the Judge 
 chosen for that jurisdiction, and it is absolutely at his will and dis- 
 cretion to try any particular suit, or to invite one of his brother 
 Judges to do so. Mr. Justice Simpson decided to preside in this case, 
 and with what results will be seen as the story of the case proceeds. 
 
 Mr. H. A. Moss appeared for the Petitioner, Arthur Coningham. 
 There was no appearance of or for the Respondent, Alice Stanford 
 Coningham ; and Mr. J. H. Want, Q.C., with him Mr. A. G. Ralston,, 
 instructed by the Hon. T. M. Slattery, M.L.C., with Mr. Patrick 
 Francis Meagher as clerk, appeared for the Co-respondent, the Rev. 
 Denis Francis O'Haran, D.D., Administrator of St. Mary's Cathe- 
 dral, and Private Secretary to His Eminence Cardinal Moran, Arch- 
 bishop of Sydney.
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 9 
 
 The practical business of calling the case and empanelling the 
 Jury was gone through. Coningham had originally employed Mr. 
 E. R. Abigail as his solicitor, but that gentleman had, in the mean- 
 time, been arrested on a charge of attempting to persuade one, Thomas 
 Coogan, to give false evidence a charge on which, it is only fair to 
 state, Mr. Abigail was subsequently acquitted by the Jury without 
 being called upon for his defence. Being under committal at the 
 time of the hearing of the suit in divorce, and Coningham having 
 unsuccessfully applied for a postponement in consequence, Mr. 
 Abigail could not well appear, and Mr. Moss was called in by the 
 Petitioner. Mr. Abigail was what is known in divorce as " The 
 Solicitor on the Records," and in the natural order of things a change 
 to Mr. Moss had to receive judicial sanction. Coningham went to 
 one of the Judges, who signed the order sanctioning the change. 
 
 The Panel consisted of the following gentlemen : Mr. Charles 
 Bath, Merchant, O'Connell Street (Church of England) ; Mr. T. G. 
 Brocklehurst, General Manager of the firm of David Jones and Com- 
 pany, George Street (Church of England) ; Mr. Bernard Kenney 
 Cox, Produce Merchant (Church of England) ; Mr. Eric Gold- 
 schmidt, Merchant (Church of England) ; Mr. William Harrison, 
 General Manager of J. T. & J. Toohey, Limited, Brewers (Church 
 of England) ; Mr. Harry Hillier, Gentleman (Church of England) ; 
 Mr. William Hy. Jones, Carpenter (Presbyterian) ; Mr. Alfred 
 Ramsay, Accountant (Church of England) ; Mr. Charles Richards, 
 Builder (Church of England) ; Mr. Fairlie Harold Tronson, Gentle- 
 man (Church of England) ; Mr. Henry West, Junior, Agent (Church 
 of England) ; and Mr. Sydney H. Young, Hairdresser, and for many 
 years Churchwarden of St. James' (Church of England). 
 
 No Roman Catholic was on the Jury. 
 
 The issues the Jury was called upon to try were enumerated in 
 the opening remarks of Mr. Moss. 
 
 What with this gentleman bolting with the bit in his mouth, 
 and his Honor putting on the curb, so to speak, the whole thing 
 would have been farcical in the extreme, had it not been for the con- 
 demnatory tone adopted by the Attorney, who evidently took upon 
 himself that particular portion of the case generally undertaken by 
 witnesses on oath. 
 
 The issues were 
 
 (i.) Marriage on March nth, 1893. 
 
 (2.) Whether the Respondent, between June i5th, 1898, and 
 September 3oth, 1899, committed adultery with Denis Francis 
 O'Haran, the Co-respondent, at St. Mary's Cathedral, and buildings 
 adjacent thereto, at Sydney, in the Colony of New South Wales. 
 
 (3.) Whether the Co-respondent between those dates committed 
 adultery with the Respondent. 
 
 (4.) And what amount of damages should be paid by the Co- 
 respondent in respect of the adultery (if any) by him committed.
 
 ?IO THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 The witnesses called for Dr. O'liaran were as follows : 
 
 DENIS FRANCIS O'HARAN, Co-respondent. 
 
 SAMUEL BARR, Clerk of Works, St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 ANGELA JOHNSTON, " Wimbledon," Five Dock. 
 
 MARY HOLLINGDALE, Burwood. 
 
 MARY AHEARN, Burwood. 
 
 JOHN BAXTER, Inspector of H.M. Customs. 
 
 PETER BYRNE, Priest of St. Mary's, Burwood. 
 
 BERNARD FRANCIS PURCELL, N.S.W. Government Railways 
 Department. 
 
 OLIVER DEANE, Overseer, Sydney Town Hall. 
 
 MARTIN CARRICK, Mayor's Orderly, Sydney Town Hall. 
 
 THOMAS E. MURPHY, President, St. Vincent de Paul Society. 
 
 THOMAS J. MACCABE, Warden General, A.H.C. Guilds. 
 
 JOHN FRANCIS HENNESSEY, Architect. 
 
 HAROLD WILLIAM TAYLOR, Imperial Pensioner. 
 
 HARRY O'CONNOR, Acting-Assistant, St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 MARY GORMAN, Wife of Governor's Orderly, Brisbane. 
 OHN GALVIN, Churchwarden at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 OHN DOWNEY, ,, ,, 
 
 OHN FRANCIS MOONEY, Bookseller, and leader of the Proces- 
 sion at St. Mary's. 
 
 MARY ATOCK, Port Macquarie. 
 
 MARY GARVIN, Dressmaker. 
 
 MARY DODDS, Domestic Servant. 
 
 EDWARD O'BRIEN, Messenger at St. Mary's. 
 
 WILLIAM S. HANNA, Private Detective. 
 
 The witnesses called for A. Coningham were : 
 
 ARTHUR CONINGHAM, Petitioner. 
 
 ALICE STANFORD CONINGHAM, Respondent. 
 
 ELIZABETH HENNESSY, Housekeeper at St. Mary's. 
 
 PATRICK FRANCIS CARDINAL MORAN, Archbishop of Sydney. 
 
 PATRICK LANGTON, Sacristan at St. Mary's. 
 
 MARY JANE MORONEY, Midwife. 
 
 PATRICK CHARLES CREGAN, Priest at St. Mary's. 
 
 THOMAS WALSH, Ex-messenger at St. Mary's. 
 
 ISABELLA SHIEL, Benefactress of Respondent. 
 
 FREDERICK W. MARSHALL, Physician and Surgeon. 
 
 J. J. CARROLL, Vicar-General. 
 
 JOHN EDWARDS, Sheriffs Officer. 
 
 BARTHOLOMEW FITZPATRICK, Sheriff's Officer. 
 
 MARY BOSTOCK, Sister of Respondent. 
 
 The Co-respondent denied generally the allegations contained 
 in the issues.
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. II 
 
 Mr. Moss's first witness, the Petitioner, Arthur Coningham, told 
 the Court his story in a confident manner. On the date of his depar- 
 ture for England with an Australian Eleven, viz., March nth, 1893, 
 he was married to Alice Stanford Bowling by the Anglican clergy- 
 man at Bondi. They separated the same afternoon ; he to go across 
 the sea to play cricket, she to return to her mother at Brisbane. 
 When he came back from England in September they rejoined each 
 other, and went to live in Brisbane, and in 1895 returned to Sydney, 
 where they had resided ever since. His wife was a Roman Catholic, 
 and his two children (Arthur, born at Brisbane on January igth, 
 1895, and Mabel, born at Bondi on May gth, 1896), were baptised as 
 members of that Church. From Bondi they went to the Glebe to 
 reside, and there the family circle was increased by a Miss Suther- 
 land and his (Coningham's) mother-in-law. All had gone on merrily 
 in the domestic circle until March, in 1897, when his wife showed 
 him a ticket for St. Patrick's Concert, in Sydney Town Hall, stating 
 that it was a special invitation sent to her by Dr. O'Haran. She 
 went to the concert, and on returning, told him that Miss Sutherland 
 had introduced her to Dr. O'Haran. Nothing out of the ordinary 
 occurred till May next year, when his mother came from Charters 
 Towers, and was taken ill. He was sent for, and attended to her, 
 and he told the Court that, in consequence of his so doing, his wife 
 and he quarrelled, and she told him afterwards that she had gone to 
 see Dr. O'Haran. A In November, 1899, another child was born, of 
 which he repudiated the paternity. There had been a coolness 
 between them, and when, in May, 1900, he returned from a sojourn 
 in Queensland, his wife was strange in her conduct, and did not care 
 about living in the same room with him an indisposition which did 
 not affect them, when at a later stage they occupied the same rooms 
 in city boarding-houses. However, one day when his wife was out 
 with her sister, about May 22nd or 23rd (they were then living at 
 Fairfield), he looked through her boxes a thing he had never done 
 before and there he found concealed an autograph-photograph of Dr. 
 O'Haran, containing the initials " D. F. O'H." and the date, 2/10/98. 
 With the photograph lay two green harps, which small boys sell in 
 the streets on St. Patrick's Day, or any other occasion of Irish 
 festival. Strange feelings came over him at the discovery, and when 
 his wife returned, he intimated to her that he wanted to speak to her, 
 as he thought that there was something strange on her mind, and he 
 wanted to know it. She replied that she had had a little trouble, 
 but as his niece was ill, he did not have the opportunity that night 
 of pursuing the subject any farther. Next day, however, he followed 
 it up by saying to her : " I must know what is the matter with you ; 
 you have been so strange in your actions. I must know the truth, 
 and I am determined to get the truth out to find out what it is." 
 He then produced the photograph, and taxed her with misconduct. 
 He had to ask her several times, and, ultimately, she " nodded her 
 head." That shameful nod of the head in the quiet house at Fair- 
 field was the initiation of a series of events which culminated in a
 
 12 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 painful incident. The conscience-stricken wife, who, when con- 
 fronted by an irate husband, was unable to speak, when again 
 -confronted by that husband in a court of justice (and the only woman 
 in a crowded building of stern and serious men), recounted her alleged 
 misdeeds in so open and brazen-faced a manner, as to cause even 
 'Coningham himself to blush for her. 
 
 But let Coningham proceed with his story ! 
 
 After the shock supervening on the " nod of the head." he asked 
 her would she give him a full confession, and she found voice and 
 .said she would. If he would only forgive her she would tell him all. 
 She had suffered intensely, and whether he had taxed her or not she 
 had determined upon telling him. She then told him the story she 
 has since told the world, in a more or less modified or intensified 
 manner, as the case might be. She wrote to him from Fairfield, 
 and put all the, blame on Dr. O'Haran, who, she said, had taken all 
 her affection from him (Coningham) and who had wrecked her home 
 .and happiness. She fixed the date of the first misconduct on the 
 night of the 3rd July, 1898. Subsequently he took out a petition in 
 divorce, and after it had been served upon her, she wrote to him 
 from Darlinghurst Road, in a letter dated October ist, in which she 
 iswore that he should not obtain the divorce. She would die first. 
 That were easy to the publicity he was preparing. She had suffered 
 so much, and would be good for the future, and she pleaded for her 
 baby's sake, and for his own sake. She prayed that he would come 
 up in a forgiving mood, and intimated that she was getting so thin 
 he would scarcely credit it. She was his repentant wife, and .so 
 satisfied was she of his forgiving nature, that she enclosed a paper 
 (the citation for divorce) which she did not know what to do with. 
 She was afraid to keep it and hoped he would destroy it. 
 
 Having thus recorded his reasons for his presence there 
 
 claiming legal rights from the Court, he turned to face the learned 
 
 Q.C. in a cross-examination, which was decidedly sensational. He 
 
 stoutly denied the existence of a second confession, or of an altered 
 
 or revised edition. He swore that he was not living with his wife 
 
 .at 46 Alberto Terrace, Darlinghurst, after his wife had been served 
 
 with the petition in September. He admitted that he had occupied 
 
 the same room as his wife at Mrs. Bray's, and at Mrs. Abraham's 
 
 .after the serving of the petition, but stated that they had occupied 
 
 .different beds. This admission was responsible for the retirement 
 
 from the case of Mr. Moss, who asked permission to withdraw from 
 
 the Court for a few minutes, in order to consider his position. 
 
 Returning, he asked Mr. Want to repeat the question put to 
 
 Coningham, as to whether he had occupied the same room as his 
 
 wife up till November yth at Mrs. Bray's, Moore Park. Coningham, 
 
 having again admittted that he had, Mr. Moss intimated, that that 
 
 .being so, his only course as an Officer of the Court was to withdraw 
 
 from the case, and that course he there and then intended to adopt. 
 
 .He then elicited an acknowledgment from the Petitioner that he had
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 13 
 
 not previously conveyed to him the information contained in the 
 last answer, and finally bowed himself out of Court. Coningham, 
 from that out, conducted his own case in Court, but continued to 
 receive advice from Mr. Moss daily. Before he had finished with 
 Mr. Want, however, he was asked a few questions about his wife's 
 antecedents, of which he claimed to be entirely ignorant. He did 
 know that she went by the name of Mrs. Rogers in Brisbane, but 
 why he did not know, nor did he wish to know. She had desired to 
 tell him something before marriage, but he restrained her, and 
 having known her for two or three years before he married her, he 
 had found her everything that could be desired, and was satisfied. 
 
 So far as Coningham's evidence went, it was simply a recital of 
 the wrongs of his wife, obtained from her by him, and by him alone. 
 There was not a particle of evidence throughout the whole case that 
 any third party had been present at any interview on the subject of 
 the alleged infidelity. The petition for a dissolution of the marriage 
 had been lodged in proper form, a copy had been served upon the 
 Respondent, and she had failed either to file an answer, as the 
 Co-respondent had done, or to appear in person, as the Co-respondent 
 had also done. That fact, in itself, might not be of great 
 significance. But Alice Stanford Coningham, who was silent when 
 called as Respondent, was very much in evidence when her wronged 
 and injured husband called her as his first witness. Coningham, 
 after concluding his own evidence, accommodated himself at the 
 barristers' table, and for the remainder of the case conducted the 
 proceedings with no mean ability. Except that he was too 
 frequently breaking off, and apologising, he developed into a cross- 
 examiner of some merit. In the unique position of husband 
 publicly examining his wife on the question ot her infidelity, he was 
 as cool and unembarrassed in his questions as she was ready and 
 fulsome in her answers. He, in the position of the outraged 
 husband, to save his honor and to merit the commiseration of his 
 fellows, felt it his duty to publicly drag from the mother of his 
 children the detailed story of her fall, while she, to compensate for 
 the injury she had done him, was prepared to declare (at times only 
 too eagerly), the story of her shame, which, as she herself had said, 
 rather than face in open Court she would die. Duty is a master with 
 few such faithful servants. Mrs. Coningham played her part in the 
 great public drama with the self-confidence of a veteran actress. 
 She even smiled at times, but at no time did she betray the emotions 
 one might not unreasonably expect from a mother of children, self- 
 convicted, if not absolutely self-accused, of bringing shame upon 
 their little heads. 
 
 As to her story, she was introduced to the Co-respondent at 
 St. Patrick's Concert on March lyth, 1897, whither she had gone 
 with a Miss Sutherland. On the evening of June 22nd she went by 
 appointment to St. Mary's Presbytery, and there saw the Co- 
 respondent, who turned down the light in his office, and made 
 improper overtures to her. St. Mary's Presbytery is a large two-
 
 14 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 storey building, occupied by a number of priests and servants, and 
 one of the most easily accessible residences in Sydney by day or 
 night. The door of Dr. O'Haran's office opens into the hall, and 
 the windows face two sides of the building. Mrs. Coningham said 
 that she would rattle the door and make a noise if he did not put the 
 light up, and he told her that it would be wiser not, as there was 
 nobody in but the servant. Anyhow, after she promised to come 
 down again to see him, he turned the light up. She did not see him 
 again till July 3rd, at night. Being the first Sunday in the month, 
 there was the usual procession and incidental ceremonies at the 
 Cathedral. When she arrived, all the seats were occupied, and she 
 was moving about when she met Dr. O'Haran, and told him that as 
 she did not feel well she would go home. He asked her would she 
 be up again on Monday or Tuesday night. She then informed him 
 that on the last occasion she had promised him she would come, but 
 she had come that night to tell him that she would not come to the 
 office again. The fact that her absence would have been a sufficient 
 indication of her having arrived at such a resolution did not occur to 
 her $The Doctor offered to show her out of the Church, and 
 she asked the Jury to believe that as a lamb is led to the 
 slaughter, so was she led by a dignitary of the Church to a hall 
 which she swore was in absolute darkness, but which a number of 
 witnesses afterwards swore was in a blaze of light at the time. She 
 swore that without being able to resist, and being too sick to 
 struggle, she was taken to a little room at the back of the Cardinal's 
 Hall, and was there a victim of a terrible crime. The date, the 
 details, the time and place, were sworn to unconditionally. A few 
 days later she became ill. She again saw the Co-respondent on the 
 last Wednesday in September. He made an improper proposal to 
 her, which she did not accept, but she arranged to go down again 
 on the next Sunday (the first Sunday in the month again). He said 
 he would give her his photograph, and she was to see him in the 
 Church. That was on October 2nd, and she met him. He told her 
 he had the photograph, but could not give it to her there. She then 
 (at his solicitation) went with him to the Cardinal's Hall, and was 
 a party to his misconduct. He gave her a photograph, and she then 
 viewed the procession from the door, afterwards going home. 
 She gave the Court a number of dates when misconduct occurred, 
 and said that Friday was the day of the week chosen by the 
 Co-respondent, on the grounds that he went to confession on a 
 Saturday morning. She said also that Dr. O'Haran had sent her 
 to confession to Father Ginisty, one of the French Priests, as he (the 
 Co-respondent) could not hear her confession, and he could .not 
 have the younger priests hearing it. It did not appear to the 
 witness (an avowed Catholic) that a statement showing such method 
 as that would be not only ridiculous but sacrilegious conduct on the 
 part of the Co-respondent, for, without touching on theological 
 matter, the youngest child in the school knows that a confession, 
 without a determination to sin no more, is not only a useless waste
 
 MR. JUSTICE G B. SIMPSON. 
 
 (Photo, by Freeman & Co., 318 George Strceti)
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 15 
 
 of time, but a very serious act of further sin. However, she said it 
 was so, and she was on oath. She told also of John Kelly, for many 
 years the faithful servant of the Cardinal, and hall porter at St. 
 Mary's. Her story was that Kelly knocked at the door on the 
 occasion, and Dr. O'Haran told her that he was the only one who 
 suspected them. Kelly died, after a short illness, some time subse- 
 quently, and it was sought to be shown by the Petitioner that his 
 rather sudden death was not altogether due to natural causes. In 
 other words, Coningham's insinuations were in the direction of 
 attributing the sudden demise to the desire of the Co-respondent to 
 get rid of a dangerous witness. This atrocious suggestion was 
 branded as it deserved when it was shown that in his last illness 
 poor Kelly was attended by two priests besides Dr. O'Haran ; and 
 also by two doctors. In ordinary circumstances such a charge 
 would have caused an intense sensation, but in this instance, when 
 the unfortunate Co-respondent had already been charged with so 
 many offences in the Criminal Calendar, an additional charge of 
 murder, more or less, was merely a trifle. At any rate, none but the 
 Petitioner treated it seriously, even if he did. 
 
 The convent incident was simply burlesque. Dr. O'Haran, so 
 the story went, was so solicitous as to the welfare of Coningham's 
 wife and children as to tell Mrs. Coningham's sister a Mrs. Bostock, 
 who was called at a stage of the case which precluded her from 
 giving evidence that provision would be made for their accommo- 
 dation in a convent if Coningham were picked to go to England 
 which he was not. Any evidence as to the impossibility of such an 
 arrangement being made outside a female refuge or an orphanage 
 was hardly necessary ; yet it was given. The incident of the iyth 
 March, 1899, when on her way to the opera in evening dress, Mrs. 
 Coningham called in at the Cathedral, and was a party to further 
 misconduct, and carried away as a trophy one of the " twopenny- 
 halfpenny harps," was a very prominent feature of the lady's evidence 
 against the Co-respondent, who, by witnesses of all creeds and 
 denominations, was proved to have been at the Sydney Town Hall 
 at the time. Yet she had the harp, which she could have bought at 
 any time, or in any part of the City, to flash before the Jury, or, to be 
 more accurate, her husband had commandeered it. After all the 
 alleged dreadful occurrences she went to the opera, enjoyed herself, 
 and met her husband her wronged and injured husband by 
 appointment, after the opera was over. 
 
 The relation of the conversation which she had with Dr. O'Haran 
 in April or May, with reference to the paternity of a certain child, 
 and the silly business recounted by her in connection with the child's 
 baptism, and the selection of the name, Vincent Francis, are too 
 trivial to need recapitulation. Any designing person, man or woman, 
 could manufacture circumstantial evidence of that description. But 
 the attempt to make capital out of little Vincent's second name was 
 puerile, and unworthy of the talented Coninghams.
 
 l6 THE COXINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham, in her visits to the Presbytery, showed a 
 wonderfully retentive memory ; a marvellous perception of detail. 
 Her dates were as precisely chronicled as the movements of the most 
 accurate of commercial travellers. To the Petitioner she could assign 
 an event to the very day. For instance, he asked her : " Do you 
 remember the night of March 3rd, 1899?" Without the slightest 
 hesitation, she answered, " Yes." But questioned by his Honor, 
 right at the moment, as to the date of certain alleged misconduct, 
 she was more elastic, and replied that it might have been either in 
 March or April. Yet this woman, and the man whom she had so 
 cruelly wronged, had taken oath that they had not compared notes, 
 or discussed the case. According to her story, she was about to 
 proceed to Melbourne in 1898, to see her husband playing cricket, 
 and she went to see the Doctor before she departed. That was six 
 months after her home and happiness had been wrecked. She said 
 that he asked her to call again before she left for Melbourne, but she 
 said that she would not, as she had too much to do to prepare. 
 Having, as she confessed, sold her soul in her husband's absence, she 
 had to occupy her mind in decorating her body for the edification of 
 her lord and master, and for her own personal gratification. 
 
 While in Melbourne, feasting her eyes on the exploits of her 
 " Conny " the endearing term used by her, in her letter to Miss 
 Sutherland, in reference to her injured husband she found time to 
 write to Dr. O'Haran. The Sacristy, the fern-house, and the 
 Presbytery Office were sworn to as the scenes of the misconduct 
 alleged to have taken place between this woman and the unfortunate 
 priest, to commit whom to social perdition she was so voluntarily, 
 and, to all appearances, so successfully, assisting her injured husband. 
 The remainder of Coningham's examination of his wife was devoted 
 to questions regarding the domestic happiness existing in his home 
 up to July 1898, to which she replied that she thought they were 
 homely and comfortable. She did say that Dr. O'Haran was so 
 inquisitive as to ask her what she saw in Coningham to marry him, 
 to which she very frankly replied that she liked him. He made an 
 offer to marry her, and she accepted the offer. The letter from 
 Fairfield, dated June I3th, 1900, was, she said, written by her. 
 
 The restlessness of the family was shown by the Respondent's 
 answers to the questions put by Mr. Want, in cross-examination. 
 From Fairfield, she said they went to Stanmore, from there to 
 Darlinghurst, from Darlinghurst to Moore Park, and from there to 
 Paddington, where, so she said, she then resided. At Stanmore her 
 husband was with her, but did not occupy the same room. She was 
 at Mrs. Abraham's, in Darlinghurst, when the petition was served. 
 The Petitioner had been living with her at that place, but left before 
 the petition was served on her by a man named James, who subse- 
 quently acquainted her with the fact that the Petitioner was then at 
 Jesmond Place. While he was still at that address he came to her 
 at Mrs. Bray's, Park Road, Moore Park, and occupied the same room
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. IJ 
 
 as she did. She left there on the day the divorce case was first 
 mentioned in the papers. Mrs. Bray had previously given her some 
 change, which she said was from Mr. Coningham's cheque, but 
 whether that cheque was dishonoured she could not say. She did 
 hear that a cheque of Coningham's for their board and lodging at 
 Park Road, Moore Park, was dishonoured. Sometimes Coningham 
 told her untruths, but she did not remember ever telling anybody by 
 word of mouth or by letter that she could not believe a word he 
 uttered. 
 
 The cross-examination then turned upon a very serious chapter 
 in the life of this woman who had come into Court, in defiance of all 
 womanly feeling, to tell her shame and subject her life's doings to all 
 the searching and dissecting that the law permits on such occasions. 
 The incident needs no comment : the facts speak for themselves. 
 Mr. Want, cross-examining, asked : 
 
 You have seen the confession in the papers ? Yes, I wrote that. 
 
 I see, among other things : " For myself, I care not what happens. 
 Two people know of my visits there and suspect the truth. During 
 my seven years of married life I have never been unfaithful before 
 or since." I suppose you mean that you have not been familiar 
 with people ? Yes. 
 
 Well, now, I will ask you about when you were in Brisbane 
 where did you live ? In Petrie Terrace. 
 
 Who was living with you before you were married ? No one 
 was living with me. 
 
 His Honor : I don't think she need answer this question. I 
 want you to consider a moment whether she need answer. 
 
 Mr. Want : Will you ask the witness to leave the Court for a 
 moment, before I say what I have to say on this point ? 
 
 His Honor (to Petitioner) : Do you object to answer this 
 question ? No, your Honor. 
 
 Mr. Want : Was there a Mrs. Bone living at Petrie Terrace 
 with you ? Yes, she stayed there a little while. 
 
 How long ? About a week. 
 No more than that ? No. 
 
 Who was Mrs. Bone ? I found out afterwards that she was not 
 JNIrs. Bone. 
 
 She was Miss B y, was she not ? Yes. 
 
 And you lived with her ? Yes, with my mother, who kept the 
 canteen there. 
 
 His Honor : Who kept the house ? My mother. 
 Mr. Want: Did you ever dress in widow's weeds in Brisbane ? 
 His Honor : You need not answer that. Do you object to 
 answer that question ? Yes, your Honor, I decline.
 
 l8 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mr. Want : While you were there, and before you were 
 married, were you not the mother of an illegitimate child in Petrie 
 Terrace ? I decline to answer. 
 
 Were you in the habit of going to Mass in widow's weeds in 
 Brisbane, and posing as Mrs. Rogers ? Do you object to answer 
 that ? Yes. 
 
 Attending Vespers and Benediction there as a Catholic ? I am 
 a Catholic. 
 
 Do you decline to answer what I am asking you ? I decline to 
 answer. 
 
 Did you ever write to your husband and tell him that you 
 would swear that no other man but Dr. O'Haran and your husband 
 had ever had intercourse with you ? I don't know. 
 
 Will you swear you did not ? No, I won't swear it. 
 
 And you decline to answer these questions ? I press them now,, 
 your Honor. Will you allow the witness to leave the Court ? 
 
 His Honor : Why should she leave the Court ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Because I want to refer to some portion of her 
 husband's evidence ; and some portion of her own. 
 
 His Honor : Very well ; perhaps it would be better. 
 Mrs. Coningham then left the witness-box. 
 
 Mr. Want proceeded to argue upon the advisability of the 
 questions he had put. He said the defence raised was an absolute 
 denial, and therefore the parties were directly in conflict, and that 
 being so, he wanted the evidence to test the credibility of the 
 witnesses. 
 
 After argument his Honor declined to compel the Respondent 
 to answer the questions whether she had been the mother of a child 
 before marriage, and whether she had posed as a Mrs. Rogers, or as 
 a widow. 
 
 His Honor asked Mrs. Coningham upon her return to Court if 
 she still declined to answer questions. She replied " I will answer 
 them, your Honor." 
 
 His Honor : I don't want you to answer them under compul- 
 sion. I now decline to answer them. 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you know those two gentlemen (handing a 
 paper to Mrs. Coningham) ? I don't know the top one. 
 
 Mr. Want : It is the name of a gentleman residing in Brisbane. 
 Do you know that gentleman (handing another paper) ? Yes, I 
 know that one. 
 
 Was that gentleman in the habit of visiting you pretty frequently 
 while your husband was in England ? I never saw him except in 
 the street. 
 
 Do you know an old lady named Mrs. Gorman a midwife 
 who lived next door to you ? Yes.
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. jg 
 
 I am now asking you about the time your husband was in 
 England. Did that gentleman call upon you frequently? I will 
 swear that he never called once. 
 
 Have you seen Mrs. Gorman in Sydney ? No. 
 
 You need not answer this. It comes within his Honor's 
 ruling. Were you not living for a long while under the protection 
 of this gentleman before marriage ? I was not. Never. 
 
 And never guilty of any impropriety with him ? Never. 
 
 Do you know that one (another paper was handed Respondent) ? 
 Were you living under his protection ? No, I was never under his 
 protection. When I knew him I was living with my parents. 
 
 Did he make any allowance to you ? No. 
 
 Were you guilty of frequent acts of impropriety with him 
 before you were married ? I decline to answer. 
 
 The words " fifteen years " ago were added to the question, and 
 then the Respondent admitted the impropriety. 
 
 Mr. Want : Will you swear that it was fifteen years ago ? Was 
 it not thirteen ? No, fourteen. 
 
 Another gentleman's name was then handed to the Respondent, 
 and she stated she did not know him. She would now be prepared 
 to answer another question if she were not compelled to give a man's 
 name. 
 
 Mr. Want : I don't want the man's name. That is the reason I 
 have written the names. 
 
 His Honor : Are you willing to answer the questions ? Yes, 
 your Honor. 
 
 Are you willing now to answer all the questions about the child 
 and the other matter ? Yes, your Honor. 
 
 Upon resuming after lunch, His Honor said he had read the 
 letter called the confession. In that the witness only said that she 
 had been faithful during her married life. 
 
 Mr. Want said that he took the letter to mean " before or since 
 our married life." 
 
 His Honor said that his view was that the letter meant " before 
 or since the intimacy with Dr. O'Haran." 
 
 Mr. Want : The jury has to construe it. 
 
 His Honor said the words were : " During our seven years of 
 married life I have never been unfaithful with any other, before or 
 since, only Dr. O'Haran." 
 
 Mr. Want : I asked her distinctly, " When you say unfaithful, 
 do you mean to say that you have not been familiar with anybody?" 
 
 His Honor : Yes, you did ask her that. 
 
 Mr. Want, addressing the Respondent : First of all, I want to 
 know about attending Mass in widow's weeds, and so on. Did you
 
 2O THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 attend as Mrs. Rogers where did you get that name from ? It is a 
 fictitious name. 
 
 And the widow's weeds were they fictitious too ? 
 How old were you then ? 17 or 18. 
 
 Were the fictitious name and the fictitious weeds adopted for 
 business ? Not altogether. 
 
 In any way ? Yes. 
 
 What business ? Because I used to assist sometimes at the 
 canteen at the barracks. 
 
 And your mother was then in charge of it ? Yes. 
 
 Why did you want to go as Mrs. Rogers, and a widow ? Be- 
 cause I had to do the books there ; and having to go in and out, 
 meeting people, my mother thought I should try and act very 
 sensibly like a woman. 
 
 And that is what you call, at the age of 17, acting very sensibly ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And under the name of Rogers, and as a widow, you attended to 
 your duties in the Church, I believe for about eighteen months or 
 two years ? Yes. 
 
 And dressed in widow's weeds ? Oh, not all the time. Just for 
 two or three months. 
 
 Just long enough to allay your grief, I suppose ? No. 
 Where was Mr. Rogers, the departed ? I never knew any. 
 
 Did you go away from Brisbane as plain Miss Bowling, and 
 come back as Mrs. Rogers ? No. 
 
 Did you tell anyone you assumed the name of Rogers, and re- 
 presented yourself as a widow ? I don't remember giving anyone any 
 particular information. 
 
 Did you spread a report that you were married, and that your 
 husband died in San Francisco ? No. 
 
 Why did you go by the name of Mrs. Rogers ? I went by the 
 "name of Mrs. Rogers, and put a wedding-ring on before I put on the 
 weeds. 
 
 And when you did put them on, did you tell anyone that your 
 husband died in San Francisco ? No. 
 
 Anyone ? No. 
 
 Did you tell anyone that you assumed the name of Rogers, and 
 put widow's weeds on ? No ; but I spoke to someone, and got their 
 advice on doing so. 
 
 Who was it ? Have I got to mention names ? 
 
 Yes, unless it is one of those gentlemen that I have mentioned. 
 I don't want it, then. It was the Rev. Father Fouhy. 
 
 Do you know he is in Sydney ? I would not be surprised.
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 21 
 
 His Honor : Was he the Clergyman of the Church there ? He 
 was the Parish Priest there. 
 
 Mr. Want : Did you ask him why you were to go about in 
 widow's weeds ? We had a conversation, and I asked him what he 
 thought of it. 
 
 What for ? He knew everything. 
 
 What did he know ? What I am willing to tell you, if you ask. 
 
 Why did you put on widow's weeds ; can you tell me that ? I 
 asked his advice. 
 
 And you say he told you to do so ? He did not tell me. He 
 said he thought it would do. 
 
 Do, what for ? When I went as Mrs. Rogers there was no 
 Mrs. Rogers. 
 
 I see. Well, what for ? Do you mean to tell us that he advised 
 you to put up a sham ? to assume the name and wear the weeds ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And to go to Mass as Mrs. Rogers, and put your name on the 
 pew ? Yes. 
 
 He advised you to do that ? Not exactly advised. He was 
 Administrator of the Church. 
 
 Well, the same thing you advised it, and he agreed to it? Yes. 
 
 Did he refuse to marry you, once to Coningham, and once to 
 someone else ? No. 
 
 You swear he didn't refuse to marry you to any one of the 
 gentlemen whose names are there ? No. 
 
 Did he refuse to marry you to Coningham ? No. 
 
 You know what I am asking you ? Yes, I do. 
 
 Did he not refuse to marry you to one of those gentlemen 
 because the young man was under age ? Yes. 
 
 And didn't he also refuse to marry you some time after that to 
 Coningham ? Never. 
 
 For certain reasons ? Never. 
 
 On April loth, 1887, your name was Alice Stanford Dowling, 
 and Mrs. Gorman, midwife, lived next door. When you were living 
 at that place called Petrie Terrace you were there confined of an 
 illegitimate child ? Yes. 
 
 That was born April loth, 1887 ? Yes. 
 
 When you were seventeen ? Yes. 
 
 Did you ever tell Coningham the reason why you put on 
 widow's weeds ? He would not let me. 
 
 Did you ever tell him ? No. 
 
 Did you ever tell him why you took the name of Mrs. Rogers ? 
 No. 
 
 Did you ever stop at Daniel's Hotel, in Brisbane ? No.
 
 22 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Never ? I swear I never did. 
 
 Did you ever live at that hotel with a man, as man and wife ? 
 Never. 
 
 Now, you know the hotel ? I know it. 
 
 In 1892 ? No. 
 
 Were you in Brisbane in 1892 ? Yes. 
 
 His Honor : Or at any other time ? No. 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you know any gentleman from Tasmania ? No ; 
 
 When did you leave Brisbane to come to Sydney before you 
 were married ? January ist, 1893. 
 
 And you were married in March ? Yes. 
 
 Most of this information was heard by Coningham for the first 
 time, but it can hardly be said that he showed the effects of such 
 disclosure, for his attention to the proceedings did not flag for a 
 moment. 
 
 With reference to the 3rd of July, Mrs. Coningham swore that 
 Dr. O'Haran was with her for three quarters of an hour, and was 
 away from the Church long enough to be too late to take his part in 
 putting the vestments on the Cardinal for the procession. Numbers 
 of witnesses testified to the utter impossibility of such a thing 
 occurring, and the Cardinal himself, when called, said that if Dr. 
 O'Haran had been absent for such a length of time he would have 
 noticed it, but he did not ever remember him being absent on any 
 such occasion. He was generally present when the vestments were 
 handed to him (the Cardinal), but it might happen that he would be 
 away attending to the procession. It was almost impossible for Dr. 
 O'Haran to be absent from marshalling the procession, and he could 
 say definitely that Dr. O'Haran had never been absent, while he 
 (the Cardinal) had been there. As for the hall which Mrs. 
 Coningham swore was in darkness, it was always lighted up on the 
 first Sunday in each month, and the ladies who took part in the 
 procession assembled there from seven o'clock until half-past eight. 
 Patrick Langton (the Sacristan), the boy whose duty it was to 
 light the hall, and a number of Churchwardens and members of 
 the various societies taking part in the procession, all gave evidence 
 that it was absolutely impossible for Dr. O'Haran to have been 
 absent from his post without general notice being taken of it. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham also sought to show that Langton had taken 
 messages to Dr. O'Haran, but Langton stated that on one instance 
 it was to carry the pew-rent, an ordinary business proceeding, and 
 .that on the other occasion, which was after the initiation of the 
 proceedings, Dr. O'Haran replied that he would not see her. 
 
 Another interesting item brought out in cross-examination was 
 that Mrs. Coningham had as a friend a lady named Miss Shie!, a 
 member of the wealthy Tyson familv, and that Mrs. Coningbam's 
 mother h^H been borrowing from the lady various sums of money.
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 23 
 
 This Miss Shiel was to finance Mrs. Coningham in the matter of an 
 hotel at Narrabeen, or, to use her own words, " she was to go and live 
 with her and they were to take it in partnership." She had received 
 money from Miss Shiel, and her letters to that lady breathe the 
 lively sense of gratitude supposed to be stimulative of favours to 
 come. 
 
 From Wetherill Park Mrs. Coningham had written the following 
 letter : 
 
 " Burrilda," 
 
 Wetherill Park. 
 
 10/7/00. 
 Dsar Miss Shiel, 
 
 I will come to see you in a few days, and won't forget the price of 
 th2 tickets I sold for you, so you must forgive me for what I could not help. I 
 hope you are very well. I never seem to be well now, and yesterday I saw my 
 mother for the first time for some weeks, and in telling me what you said about 
 me she admitted she had been to see you about money again. Now, to tell you 
 the truth I was shocked beyond words, and can assure you such a thing 
 will never happen again. It is disgraceful how they think you can help 
 them. I did abuse her for it, and can tell you as I told her, if she 
 had a palace I would no more live with her than with my sister. My 
 husband will have to keep me always ; and what is more, work for it, so please 
 don't think I had even a knowledge of it, or she would never have bothered you. 
 It upset me fearfully. Vincent is such a good baby, and a big one too, only not 
 well to-day, the weather is against him so. If you feel kind enough to answer 
 this, tell me when I will find you at No. 19, and I will do myself the pleasure of 
 calling. My kindest regards to Miss Me. With love, I remain, yours faithfully. 
 
 A. CONINGHAM. 
 
 The most peculiar feature of the evidence of Mrs. Coningham 
 was the fact that though she had made but one written and one 
 verbal confession to the Petitioner, he showed by his questions that 
 he was possessed of the most minute details. The Respondent denied 
 that they had consulted about the case, and stated that on occasions 
 she had attempted to talk to him about it, but as he would not 
 listen, she had talked " at " him. She subsequently stated that she 
 had told him the particulars in July at Fairfield. The peculiarly 
 accurate knowledge of detail shown by Coningham's questions was 
 the subject-matter of very close investigation by the learned advo- 
 vocates of the Co-respondent. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham had made a big feature of the fact that she had 
 rung up Dr. O'Haran on the telephone. She conveyed to him 
 certain information, which, judging from the fact that he declined 
 conversation, or from the answers he gave her, did not seem to have 
 had any particular interest for him. It was all about a certain event 
 which did not concern the doctor, but when in cross-examination 
 Mr. Want sought to elicit the fact that it was only a " try on," Mrs. 
 Coningham was indignant very virtuously indignant indeed. 
 Another matter on which Mrs. Coningham was keen was the 
 number of steps by which she said Dr. O'Haran led her down to 
 the Cardinal's Hall. There were either four, or six, or seven. In
 
 24 E CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 view of the subsequent developments this fact is worth noting. A 
 good deal turned on it, but seeing that Mrs. Coningham was sick 
 and miserable in the extreme, it is hardly to be expected that she 
 should have known the exact number of steps down which she had' 
 passed, and such a trifle would have been unnoticed, but for her 
 emphasis. In fact, most of Mrs. Coningham's evidence gathered' 
 weight by its positiveness. Her stories lost nothing in the telling,. 
 and were related with a composure that was almost uncanny. 
 
 But her story was entirely uncorroborated, and Coningham 
 floundered perceptibly when he was asked to call his next witness^ 
 He nominated several people from the Cathedral, amongst them 
 Cardinal Moran, but none of them answered, and the learned Judge 
 waxed wroth. Coningham did not know his position ; he had to beg 
 his Honor's pardon. Several subpoenas had been served, but the 
 witnesses did not answer promptly. Ultimately, the Cardinal was- 
 called, and not answering, the fact was pounced upon by the Judge, 
 who said there was no excuse for him. Mr. Want remarked in a 
 cutting manner that he did not wish to give any explanation for the 
 Cardinal after what his Honor had said. And up rose his Honor 
 with unmerited rebuke upon his tongue. " If Cardinal Moran," 
 said he, " has been subpoenaed, and doesn't attend, I shall issue a- 
 warrant to compel his attendance. I shall not hesitate to do it.- 
 That may be conveyed to him by some of his friends just as they 
 think fit. I will do my duty. If it has been proved that he has 
 been served I will issue a warrant to apprehend him. It is a 
 monstrous thing that the Court is to be treated in this way." 
 
 Subsequently, his Honor, addressing the Jury, said that he was 
 very sorry. He was " still hopeful that the witnesses would attend 
 without having to resort to extreme measures." 
 
 Mr. Slattery, who is a Knight of St. Gregory, and one of the 
 lay dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church, rose to explain the 
 absence of the Cardinal, but was quickly snubbed by Mr. Justice 
 Simpson. When the Cardinal attended, his Honor became 
 tardily apologetic. The Cardinal, one of the Princes of the Roman 
 Catholic Church, had been subjected to an indignity through a mis- 
 understanding, and the Judge was satisfied. He (the Cardinal) had 
 been informed by Mr. Moss (Coningham's Attorney) that he would 
 not be required at a certain time. That was on Monday morning.. 
 On Tuesday evening he received a few lines from (as he supposed) 
 Mr. Coningham, on a slip of paper, stating that he would be required 
 the next day, but he was rather doubtful of the genuineness of the 
 note, after having been informed by Mr. Moss that he would not be 
 required. Judge Simpson thought it his duty to read the Cardinal 
 a lecture, and his Eminence, in due course, apologised. There 
 appeared to be, however, something wanting in the explanation, and 
 that his Honor was uneasy on the point was shown by the constant 
 references made to it at later stages. No doubt his Honor was ini
 
 1HE FIRST TRIAL. 25 
 
 duty bound to make some show in the direction of asserting the 
 dignity of the Court, but having in view the fact that the explana- 
 tion given of the absence of intention to treat the Court with dis- 
 respect was so full and complete, it would have come with far 
 better grace had his Honor frankly admitted that his own attitude 
 had been unnecessarily austere. 
 
 On the Bench, Judge Simpson is full of anecdote ; but the 
 reversion to simple incidents, harmless in their way, but devoid of 
 all relevancy, was so monotonous in this particular case as to fill the 
 Court with weariness. The diversion of addressing the Jury at 
 various stages of the case, was, perhaps, a lightening of the 
 monotony, as far as the learned Judge was concerned, but a burden- 
 ing of the case that carried with it a more or less serious reflection 
 on the gentlemen of the Bar, whose duty it was to put the facts 
 clearly, simply, and concisely to the Jury. No such undue reflection 
 could be attributed as intentional on the part of his Honor, but the 
 fact remains that he did break into the evidence to address the Jury, 
 
 We will now revert to June 2gth, 1898. Mrs. Coningham swore 
 that she was with Dr. O'Haran on that date, from half-past seven 
 until half-past eight in the evening. It was impossible for him to 
 have been 20 miles away at that time. Dr. O'Haran, however, stated 
 that he was then at the house of Miss Johnston, at Wimbledon, Five 
 Dock, in the Parish of Concord, or, as it is more generally known, 
 Burwood. He said that he left St. Mary's at ten minutes past five, 
 and travelled by the half-past five train to Strathfield. He remem- 
 bered distinctly that it was the northern train. From the station he 
 went by cab to the Presbytery at Concord, and there met Father 
 Peter Byrne, the Parish Priest, and Father McDermott, one of the 
 assistants. Shortly after six, they had tea, and were subsequently 
 joined by Mr. John Baxter, who has for many years held one of the 
 highest positions in the Customs House, and who was at the time 
 of the trial the Acting-Collector of Customs. 
 
 About five minutes to 8, after apologising to Mr. Baxter for 
 leaving him, Father Byrne and Dr. O'Haran left for Five Dock, 
 where they met a number of friends, who were present at a birthday 
 feast. He went to the Burwood Railway Station on leaving, and re- 
 turned by train to Sydney. He was about an hour and a half at 
 \Yimbledon, and he absolutely, and unconditionally, denied that he 
 saw Mrs. Coningham on that night. The witnesses who were called 
 for the defence, to show Dr. O'Haran's movements on that night, 
 though subjected to a searching and at times an insulting cross- 
 examination by the Petitioner, were most convincing, and practically 
 unassailable. Father Byrne, in answer to the Petitioner in cross- 
 examination, said that Dr. O'Haran had spoken to him first about 
 the case, and June 2gth, on the Saturday week previous. That 
 would be December ist, two days before the trial, when, as far as 
 was publicly known, June 2gth was not one of the dates fixed by the
 
 26 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Respondent. This fact, it is stated, so occupied the mind of at least 
 one of the Jurymen that he gave an adverse verdict ; but its ex- 
 planation is simple. A copy of Mrs. Coningham's statement, sent 
 to Coningham, reached the Co-respondent's solicitor, how, or by 
 what means, is immaterial. Herein rested the fact of Dr. O'Haran's 
 knowledge, and the question put by him to Father Byrne. The 
 balance of the evidence in the case was confined to a refutation of 
 the charges of the Respondent, for such they were, and it was proved 
 conclusively, amongst other things, that on the nights of the first 
 Sunday in each month it was impossible for the Cardinal's Hall to be 
 in darkness at the time alleged by Mrs. Coningham. Instead of Dr. 
 O'Haran being anxious to seek opportunities of being in Mrs. Con- 
 ingham's company, he showed undoubted antipathy to such a con- 
 tingency, and refused to see her, or to communicate with her by 
 telephone. He was, from the outset, extremely guarded against the 
 woman whom he so early suspected of design. It was shown that the 
 photograph could have been obtained at the Australian Fair. The 
 harps could have been bought, as already shown, from the boys in 
 the street. Another important fact in the case was that though 
 Coningham and his wife charged Dr. O'Haran with the paternity of 
 the child, Vincent Francis, Coningham registered the child and cer- 
 tified that he was the father ; but afterwards called evidence for the 
 purpose of showing that he could not have been the father. There 
 was also ample evidence that Mrs. Coningham's statements regarding 
 events which she said had happened in various places in the Cathe- 
 .dral and its grounds, and in the Presbytery, were unreliable. All the 
 servants attached to the Cathedral were called by Coningham, but 
 their testimony injured his case. Langton, the Sacristan of the 
 Cathedral, gave evidence of certain conversations, which, in the light 
 of recent events, one might suspect as being well-planned incidents 
 of a carefully-constructed plot. 
 
 By the way, much capital was made out of Coningham's remark- 
 able readiness to seize points, and to originate lines of attaqk. He 
 had even been credited with curious powers in the manufacture of 
 machine-made eloquence. At the conclusion- of the first case, his 
 speech to the Jury wound up with the following purple patch : 
 
 " I will say no more, but I am reminded of a quotation from 
 ; Horace,' which said that if punishment be slow, yet it seldom fails 
 to overtake the guilty. And the Jury should mete out that punish- 
 ment. I trust that your verdict will mete out to the man who has so 
 long revelled in his sin such punishment as will deter others who, like 
 him, hold positions where they can use their spiritual powers to wrong 
 mothers and wives. What woman is safe what wife is safe what 
 girl, even, is safe amongst such monsters ? No woman should ever 
 be allowed to darken the portals of a building where they were 
 
 " Darken the portals " is good ! But the matter belongs not to 
 the versatile Coningham, clever as he is credited with being. To 
 invert a Biblical image, the voice is, indeed, the voice of Esau, but
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 
 
 the hand is that of Jacob. In other words, " Conny's" text was sup- 
 plied by that facile humorist, Mr. Ernest R. Abigail, and the writer 
 of this is in the proud position of being able to give his readers the 
 draft copy, drawn up in that smart young solicitor's flowing hand : 
 
 No/a dene. The learned solicitor spells mete, m-e-e-t !
 
 28 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mr. Coningham appears never to have lacked assistance. Beneath 
 is reproduced a note, evidently taken down in a hurry (from whose 
 lips, we wonder ?) by the extra-careful Petitioner. It speaks for 
 itself. Comment is needless. Its morality is absolutely on a par 
 with its value as a legal argument : 
 
 Before closing the summary of the case, short reference to a very 
 regrettable feature might not be inopportunely introduced. 
 
 Coningham, who originally sought for a divorce, as he said, to 
 save his honour, found himself, as the case proceeded, flooded with 
 inspirations from many quarters inspirations that did not come from 
 .any desire to help him to obtain the divorce, but to help him to 
 assail, not only a worthy priest, of the Roman Catholic Church, but 
 the Church itself. The matter of the discussion of theology was 
 allowed by Judge Simpson. It should not have been allowed. If 
 any evidence were needed that such was the general opinion, it was 
 forthcoming in the dissatisfaction attendant upon the inconclusive 
 result of the protracted hearing for which his Honor was respon- 
 sible. He had treated the Cardinal in anything but a considerate 
 manner, and in forcible contrast to his treatment of a well-known 
 .proprietor of a variety show in connection with a subsequent case. Judge
 
 THE FIRST TRIAL. 2g 
 
 Simpson threatened the Cardinal with dire punishment for a failure 
 to attend on call, all of which was subsequently and very reasonably 
 explained ; but when Mr. Harry Rickards (proprietor of the "Tivoli," 
 and a number of other theatres, where contemptible references to a 
 case the Coningham Case in fact were being made in song) 
 arose in Court and interrupted Mr. Reid, one of His Majesty's Privy 
 Councillors, in his address to the Jury, he, Mr. Justice Simpson, 
 asked Mr. Reid not to irritate Mr. Rickards. Mr. Reid very pro- 
 perly intimated that he declined to regulate his observations by any 
 such consideration, and he would conduct his client's case as if he 
 were absolutely ignorant of his (Mr. Rickards's) presence. Mr. Justice 
 Simpson subsided without a murmur. But when Mr. Want stood 
 out for his client's rights in an equally forcible way, the learned Judge 
 told him to hold his tongue. Before leaving Mr. Justice Simpson, 
 it is only right to recall the very grave indiscretion to use an only 
 too liberal term which he showed in his address to the Jury by 
 his reference to the controversial feeling which was created by the 
 speech, or rather by what was reported as the speech, of Archbishop 
 Redwood at the Dedication of St. Mary's Cathedral in September. 
 It had no more connection with the Coningham Case than it had with 
 the coming eclipse. Yet his Honor felt it his duty to bring it in, as 
 he had felt it his duty to allow Coningham to question priests on 
 their theology, and Dr. O'Haran on the matter of his dress. And 
 this is how he introduced it towards the close of the summing up : 
 
 " People will say things about the Church of Rome just as the 
 Church of Rome will say things about the Church of England. 
 Things had been said which had been regretted by everybody, and 
 I believe by members of the Church of Rome. It is a most un- 
 happy state of things that at the opening of this Cathedral, which 
 might have been made the occasion of the binding up of any wounds 
 which may have been opened, that advantage was taken to make a 
 gross attack upon other churches. In conversations I have had with 
 .a few members of the Church of England, clerical and lay, they re- 
 gretted it. It only shows that on the one side attacks had been made 
 .against the Church of Rome, and on the other against the Church 
 of England. But these considerations should not enter into the 
 Jury-box at all. You must be careful not to allow yourselves to be 
 influenced by any such suggestions ; above all and this may be my 
 .apology for reference to the matter you must be very careful in 
 dealing with a question of the kind when, in consequence of this un- 
 happy thing which took place, it may be that the feelings of the 
 people were very much incensed against the Roman Catholic Church, 
 by reason of the action of one man at St. Mary's Church. Consider 
 your verdict." 
 
 The Jury failed to bring in a verdict, after twelve hours' retire- 
 ment. Eight of their number were convinced of Dr. O'Haran's 
 innocence. The other four believed what Coningham and his wife 
 said. Thus the case ended unsatisfactorily. Had it but been a
 
 3O THE CON'INGHAM CASE. 
 
 nine-to-three verdict, Dr. O'Haran would not have been subjected to- 
 the great worry attendant upon a second trial, and this is all the more 
 regrettable, inasmuch as one of the Jurymen was heard to observe 
 that the interpolation of the Judge's remarks on the Redwood inci- 
 dent had caused him to record an adverse verdict against the Co- 
 respondent. 
 
 The inconclusive result of the trial was a great disappointment 
 to the public. Drawn fights are always unsatisfactory. The interest 
 of the people had been worked up to fever-heat, and the end was 
 empty nothing worse than nothing, indeed, as it still left Dr, 
 O'Haran under a cloud. The general opinion seemed to be that if 
 ever the community had to be saved from destruction by the intellect 
 of a certain number of its citizens, the Jurymen in the first trial of 
 this case would not be asked to step forward and fill the breach.
 
 THE WADDY FIASCO. 
 
 THE side issues of this extraordinary case were many, and it is 
 a notable fact that in most of the causes ceUbves tried in New 
 South Wales side issues have been curiously recurrent. Whatever 
 suspicion may have been entertained of Coningham's underground 
 engineering in the first case, there was no doubt that his 
 operations were very successfully masked. But there were grave 
 rumours to the effect that the true cause sworn to in the petition 
 for divorce was only a premature, even an immature, condition on 
 which proceedings were being taken which would warrant the 
 calling to arms of Orangeism against the Roman Catholic Church. 
 Meetings were held, as we know since, at the residence of a. 
 leading clergyman of a distinctive denomination, who has earned 
 a reputation which the meanest man in the community will not 
 desire to steal from him. This gentleman, Dill-Macky by name,, 
 was the power that moved the Coningham lever. To suit his own 
 contemptible ends, the Rev. W. M. Dill-Macky, erstwhile 
 Moderator of the Presbyterian Church, had placed at the disposal 
 of a Coningham committee a room rendered sacred by the 
 memory of one of Young Australia's noblest patriots, his high- 
 minded predecessor, the Rev. John Dunmore Lang. 
 
 Mr. Dill-Macky went a good deal further. Hiding himself 
 behind the ministerial cloak, he used his position in the Loyal 
 Orange Lodge to solicit sympathy with his hitherto unaccredited 
 protege, Mr. Arthur Coningham. Amongst those whom Mr. 
 Dill-Macky hoodwinked was young Mr. Percival R. Waddy. Mr. 
 Percival R. Waddy is a Barrister-at-law, and has chambers at 93 
 Elizabeth Street. Mr. Waddy was a member of the Coningham 
 Relief Committee which met in Mr. Dill-Macky's parlour, and was 
 chosen as secretary. It was deemed advisable to issue a circular, 
 and a circular was drafted. On Friday, February ist, it was 
 issued throughout certain portions of the City. Mr. Waddy said 
 that he did not write it. He had allowed his name to be attached 
 to a circular sent round to a printer, but he would not allow that ir 
 was his original circular which found publicity. He went so far 
 as to lay a charge of direct conspiracy against some persons, 
 whom he named to his friends, but whom he very wisely refrained 
 from mentioning in a general way. He said he was much over- 
 come on that afternoon of Friday, February ist, and had certain 
 papers taken from him. The police charged him with drunkenness
 
 32 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 when they locked him up. A fine of 55. was the result of this 
 indiscretion. The circular was as follows : 
 
 Chambers, 93 Elizabeth Street, 
 
 Sydney, ist February, igoi. 
 Coningham v. Coningham. 
 
 Dear Sir, I respectfully beg to draw your attention to the fact that the 
 above-mentioned divorce suit, which resulted so unsatisfactorily after a 
 protracted hearing in December last, has been set down, on the Petitioner's own 
 application, in person, for re-trial on Monday, the nth of March proximo. 
 
 I venture to point out that this matter has, unfortunately, given rise to 
 sectarian feeling of the bitterest character, and that the Petitioner is wholly 
 unable to provide funds for the due prosecution of his suit. 
 
 He is placed in a still more awkward position by having to fight, single- 
 handed, against the combined forces of the entire Roman Catholic Church, and 
 the array of legal ability which its unlimited resources are able to provide. 
 
 It behoves every Protestant who wishes to see the Romish Church humiliated to 
 assist in seeing justice done between the parties, upon equal terms, by 
 subscribing liberally towards the Petitioner's Relief Fund, so as to enable him 
 to secure the services of legal gentlemen and eminent counsel in his forthcoming 
 trial. 
 
 Any amount, even pence from the poor Protestants, however small, will be 
 gratefully received, and in appealing to you for your generous assistance, I beg 
 to point out that no donor's name will be divulged (in or out of Court), and that 
 every subscription will be duly acknowledged by Mr. Arthur Coningham 
 himself. 
 
 Thanking you in anticipation of your response, 
 
 I am, yours faithfully, 
 
 PERCIVAL R. WADDY, 
 
 Barrister-at-law, 
 
 Hon. Sec. Coningham Relief Fund. 
 
 If Mr. Waddy had not allowed his enthusiasm to overcome 
 him this circular might not have gone outside the limits intended. 
 
 By the irony of fate, when Mr. Waddy was taken into the 
 Water Police Station, Mr. E. R. Abigail happened to be at the tele- 
 phone, which was immediately behind the desk where the charge 
 was entered. No sooner did Mr. Waddy see Mr. Abigail than he 
 rushed at him, and attacked him so savagely that force was ren- 
 dered necessary in order to restrain him from violence. What was 
 lost in physical energy was compensated for in abuse, and the 
 barrister secretary had to be carried off to the cells. 
 
 As soon as Mr. Waddy was freed from his peculiar predica- 
 ment he very thoughtfully went round and apologised to all the 
 parties whom he had insulted. He also apologised to the public 
 for his behaviour. He had been injudicious, and his little escapade 
 would have been forgotten if somebody had not spread the rumour 
 that he had said he had been drugged when he lost the circular. 
 
 It only needed a suggestion of drugging to be mentioned to 
 be taken up with a general cry on the other side. The allegation 
 against the assumed druggers was that having learnt that Mr. 
 Waddy was about to issue a circular, they had doctored his liquor 
 in order to obtain it. For a man drugged, he showed the most
 
 THE WADDY FIASCO. 33 
 
 remarkable and bellicose activity before, and for many hours after, 
 being locked up at the police-station, and the suggestion that he 
 was drugged was made only at a very late stage of the proceedings. 
 
 When the public nature of his conduct rendered it imperative 
 for him to make some explanation that was on the Saturday follow- 
 ing Mr. Waddy went to the Truth Office, and stated that he had 
 been asked to act as secretary to the Coningham Relief Fund at a 
 committee meeting, at which a circular was drawn up, and as the 
 members of the committee did not desire to affix their names to it, 
 he subscribed his, but did not add the words " Barrister-at-Law," 
 which he contended were utilised to bring him into public contempt. 
 Just here it might be mentioned that he made no denial of having 
 addressed the document from " Chambers, 93 Elizabeth Street." 
 He also repudiated the passages in italics, qualifying the word 
 *' Protestant" with the adjective "loyal," which, if one were to 
 judge from the stand-point of the Protestants of the Dill-Macky 
 stamp, is synonymous with bigoted. Mr. Waddy was shown a copy 
 of the alleged fraudulent circular by the Truthon Saturday, February 
 2nd, before 3 o'clock in the afternoon, eight hours at least before 
 " copy " closed, and the thought never occurred to him that the 
 publication of the original circular with his public denial would 
 have been more effective then than having it published a week 
 later. The name of the printer did not appear on the circular. 
 
 During the following week, Mr. Waddy prosecuted Mr. Booth 
 for not having his name and address appended to a published print. 
 It was a friendly kind of prosecution, before Mr. Wilshire, S.M., 
 at the Water Police Court. At the outset, his Worship expressed 
 the opinion that the information was bad, whereupon Mr. Waddy's 
 legal representative said that the matter was one which practically 
 would not be contested, and that he was not going to press for a 
 heavy penalty. Mr. Thomson, for the defendant, said that he would 
 not take exception to the information, and that his client would 
 plead " Not guilty," whereupon Mr. Waddy was placed in the box, 
 and detailed a statement made to him by Mr. Booth. This was, in 
 effect, that he had sent to Mr. Booth a circular to be printed, and 
 that early on Friday morning he received from him tiuo proofs. He 
 sent one, after correcting it, to Booth, and he lost the other. The 
 words referred to were not included in the proof sent to Booth, and 
 the first he knew of the circular was when it was handed to him on 
 Saturday afternoon. He asked Booth, and Booth said that he had 
 printed the words, but he had given the corrected proof back to a 
 boy who had brought it, and had represented that he came from 
 Mr. Waddy, and who had subsequently received fifty copies. He 
 (Mr. Waddy) had not the original manuscript ; he had handed it to 
 the printer, who still had it, unless it bad been destroyed. That 
 was all Mr. Waddy had to say, and Mr. Thomson, for the defen- 
 dant, having admitted the publication, stated that a copy was sent, 
 by a boy, to defendant for revision. Mr. Ferguson explained that
 
 34 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 they were satisfied of Mr. Booth's bona-fides in the matter, and) 
 withdrew the information against him. The parties acquiesced in 
 the view that a vile plot had been perpetrated, and an announce- 
 ment having been made that the person who perpetrated the decep- 
 tion would very likely be prosecuted, the matter, so far, ended. 
 Neither the original manuscript, the proof of the circular that was- 
 corrected by Mr. Waddy and handed to the printer, nor the proof 
 supposed to have been " faked," have ever come to light, nor has- 
 any attempt been made to prosecute the alleged druggers. 
 
 The following letter, which is a photographic reproduction 
 of a communication written by Mr. Waddy to the alleged chief 
 of the alleged conspirators, should, however, despatch this question 
 to where the weary are at rest. 
 
 'o /T_c-cA<^u-evo ..
 
 THE WADDY FIASCO. 
 
 35! 
 
 
 Apropos the proofs, the usual practice is for a printer of any 
 important matter to keep the manuscript as a guarantee, to pull 
 two proofs, one of which he never parts with, and the other he 
 usually sends to the party concerned. If corrections or alterations 
 are made, and the interested party desires a revise, one will be sent, 
 but no printer of any important document will fail to keep for him- 
 self copies of every proof which is sent out of his office. That is 
 his protection. Manuscript and proofs are treated in printing- 
 offices as sacred between client and printer, and printer and em- 
 ployee, and the breaking of any such trust as between the two 
 latter is not to be forgiven, and in most offices is very properly 
 punished by instant dismissal. Fortunately for Sydney, such mea- 
 sures are hardly, if ever, necessary, and it is, therefore, all the 
 more incomprehensible how a slip of paper lost by Mr. Waddy 
 should have so unfortunately fallen, as Mr. Wilshire ironically 
 remarked, into the hands of a person who was not only regardless 
 of the consequences to Mr. Waddy, but who undertook a gratuit- 
 ous risk of an exceedingly serious nature by altering the original 
 wording of the document.
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." 
 
 A GAME OF EUCHRE. 
 
 THE First Trial was over, and the result was like the conclu- 
 sion of one of those ingenious problems of Euclid which end with 
 an absurdity. It was a story with a fine plot a really artful plot 
 and plenty of dramatic incident, but no finish. The public were, 
 very naturally, exasperated. Their interest had been excited to 
 an extent almost unparalleled. The other great events of the 
 time and it was a time of great events were forgotten or ignored. 
 And, after all, the strange Sensational Drama had no denouement. 
 The curtain came down upon an empty stage, and the audience 
 were filled with dissatisfaction and disgust. Up till this time I had 
 had no connection with the Case. I was interested in it as a 
 member of the public, but nothing more. I had, of course, a full 
 share in the general dissatisfaction with the mountain in labour 
 that brought forth such a ridiculous still-bcrn mouse ; but I kept 
 dark, and said nothing, or very little. Then the time arrived for 
 me to take a modest part in the drama, which was being put in 
 rehearsal for a second performance. I met Solicitor X on 
 the evening of the day upon which the bright and intelligent 
 Jury of the first trial informed the Judge that they had no remarks 
 worth mentioning to make about the case. I was in an hotel with 
 some friends who were discussing this curious phase of mental 
 affliction, and freely, but not intemperately, expressing their 
 opinions about the gifted Jurymen and the solemn and sagacious 
 Judge. At the other side of the room a group of gentlemen were 
 drinking and chatting gaily together. They seemed to be in 
 excellent spirits, and laughed frequently. Solicitor X was 
 amongst them, and held his own with the best. But the chief 
 figure in the group was Coningham, "The Champion of Morality," 
 who took his glory as quietly as he took his liquor. He knew 
 more than the others knew, and was not over inflated with 
 premature arrogance. 
 
 I thought this was a good opportunity to establish a genial 
 acquaintance with these merry gentlemen. I may say that I had a 
 slight previous knowledge of Solicitor X. He also knew me 
 or thought that he did, which amounted to the same thing, 
 just then. He was candid enough to say that he had regarded me 
 with suspicion as a Dangerous Person, until his mind had been set 
 at rest by a mutual friend, who described me as an individual 
 indifferently supplied with wits, who did not always know enough
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 37 
 
 to come in out of the rain. Anyhow, I was evidently looked upon 
 as harmless, and was received by the gang like a brother. Even 
 Coningham, "The Mirror of Chivalry," condescended to take a 
 drink at my expense. It was not the proudest moment of my life. 
 
 This festive meeting gave me a starting point. I went quietly 
 to work and made some valuable friendships. I got to know, to 
 begin with, an unattached gentleman, of easy morals, who was a 
 sort of confidential satellite of Solicitor Y, who was supposed to 
 hold the original confession written, in a free and dashing hand, by 
 the unhappy lady in the Case. 
 
 My friend the Satellite and I became almost inseparable. We 
 could scarcely drink apart, so fond were we of each other's 
 company. I am grieved to say that I have reason to think that it 
 was not for my good looks, or good fellowship alone, that he 
 courted my society. On the other hand, I was not infatuated with 
 him because of his personal beauty or virtue. He wanted some- 
 thing : so did I. We beat about the bush a good deal at first, but 
 the moment arrived when we understood each other. Then he 
 informed me that the confession referred to was not in the office of 
 Solicitor Y. All the documents in the case were in the possession 
 of Solicitor X, my legal friend, who regarded me as more fool 
 than knave. I suggested to the Satellite that he should cultivate 
 the acquaintance of this astute gentleman. 
 
 He did, and, as a first result, brought me a copy of a letter 
 written by Mrs. Coningham, in which that persecuted lady 
 expressed a desire to have money. This, by the way, was the first 
 letter produced at the Second Trial. I wanted the original. The 
 Satellite promised to secure it for me for a consideration, of course. 
 
 Then a certain Solicitor Z prowled hungrily out of Nowhere 
 and seized that Original Letter in a haggard clutch. He got the 
 reward, and my friend the Satellite was, for the time being, a 
 Ruined Jackal. He, was, however, more disgusted than discouraged 
 by his discomfiture, and, shortly afterwards, came to me and 
 informed me, in dark confidence, that he and Solicitor X were in 
 communication with a man who had certain letters, written by Dr. 
 O'Haran to a lady, which, if produced in Court, would settle the 
 case at once, and make the Defendant wish he were dead, and at 
 home with the Rev. Mr. Judas. I laughed at this, but the 
 Satellite said that he knew what he was talking about, and would 
 give me copies of the shocking epistles. He said they were 
 capable of a construction which would in Kruger's famous phrase 
 stagger Humanity. 
 
 He brought me two type-written copies. I read them, and saw 
 that it might be possible for persons who were constipated with 
 sectarian prejudice to make evil meaning out of them. Where 
 there is a will there is always a way. I saw copies of the rest of 
 the letters there were nine in all, and nothing in any that would
 
 38 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 bear evil construction if read by healthy-minded men or women. 
 But a section of the public was not in a healthy state of mind at 
 the time. It had been goaded, and whooped up, and sooled on by 
 professional sectarian mischief-mongers to such an extent that it 
 was hardly fit to be at large. The most innocent of documents 
 might have been construed by the Sydney Successors of Titus 
 Gates into damning proofs of profligacy. Letters, like figures, can 
 be made to prove anything when the contract is taken up with 
 enthusiasm and determination. These considerations made me 
 think it was my business to get those letters. They were wr'tten 
 by Dr. O'Haran in '94, '95, and '96. In other words, nine letters 
 covered three years of correspondence. The lady to whom they 
 were addressed was a convert to Catholicism. It is a little too 
 absurd to suppose that a priest who was capable of breaking his 
 vows and playing the profligate would be mad enough to begin by 
 scaring away a new lamb from the fold. Even the Devil does not 
 go about like a roaring lion when he takes the part of the seducer. 
 But this phase of the nefarious business is beneath argument. 
 Here follows a sample of the shocking correspondence : 
 
 St. Mary's Cathedral, 
 
 Sydney, 22nd July, 1895. 
 My Dear Miss 
 
 I should have written to thank you for so kindly donating to me your copy 
 of Canon Kemmis' lecture, and as past kindness is generally the guarantee of future 
 favours, I would feel doubly grateful if you could put me on the track of getting 
 his second letter or lecture on the missions. It is such an immense advantage to 
 have the full text, as the garbled reports of newspapers seldom, if ever, do justice 
 to an important discourse. Yes. I will be generous enough to give Mrs 
 and yourself a united occasion of redeeming your word and paying me the visit 
 you both owe me, according to promise. If you could to-morrow, for instance, 
 any time after 2.30 and 3 p.m., I would be at home alone. So I'll expect the 
 pair of you about 3 p.m. 
 
 Believe me, sincerely, etc., 
 
 Miss DENIS F. O'HARAN. 
 
 How weretheseletters tobeobtained? It wasadifficult business, 
 and would call for some delicate diplomacy before it was satisfac- 
 torily concluded. In the first place they (the letters) were stolen 
 property. They had been purloined from their owner by a certain 
 mysterious Burglar, for whom Solicitor X and his Satellite were 
 acting as agents " Fence," is the technical term, I am told. 
 The latter could not, therefore, come into the open market with 
 their wares, but their Principal, the Burglar, wanted money badly, 
 and wanted it soon. In the meantime he held the letters. They 
 were, apparently, his sole stock-in-trade, and he did not wish to 
 dispose of them at a sacrifice. This was the gist of the story told 
 me by my friend, the Satellite. I believed a portion of it, and took 
 the rest on distrust. I had no doubt but that the letters were 
 securely planted in the office of Solicitor X. Anyhow, I entered 
 into negotiations with these honest merchants, with a view to 
 business.
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 39 
 
 Then Solicitor Z, the irrepressible pettifogger, prowled once 
 more out of obscure Nowhere, and made a desperate dash for 
 a share of the supposititious plunder. He scented those letters 
 afar off, and judged that they spelt Loot. It was harder to keep 
 him away from them than to keep a blow-fly away from mutton in 
 the Dog Days. I shooed him off as often as I could, and he also 
 said I was a Dangerous Person, After some trouble I managed to 
 shoo him off, and freeze him out, for good and all. Solicitor Z 
 now disappears from the story in a cloud of dust and derision. 
 
 I then found it necessary to the accomplishment of my plans 
 that Solicitor X and Solicitor Y should hold no communication 
 with each other. I thereupon sowed the seeds of distrust between 
 them, and the crop was swift and rank. It is not hard to make 
 lawyers of a certain type suspect each other. They have their 
 reasons bushels of them. 
 
 This cleared the ground a little more, and I might have 
 congratulated myself on the progress I had made. But I began 
 to think that my friend, the Satellite, was not acting the part of a 
 true and faithful " pal " to me. He was a shallow creature, and I 
 soon discovered that he had transferred his allegiance to Solicitor 
 X. Codlin was his friend, and not Short, so to speak. I also 
 found out that the Satellite had made overtures to the " Other 
 Side in the Case " with dispiriting results. Certain prominent 
 sympathisers with the chivalrous Coningham and his deeply- 
 injured spouse had been shown the letters, but saw no turn-over 
 value in them, and would not come to terms. When I learned 
 this I determined to get them for nothing. But for this I would 
 want a more trusty ally than my friend, the Satellite. I did not tell 
 him of my discoveries, however, and we remained on amicable 
 terms for a little while longer. Meanwhile I cast about for 
 another "pal, "and was fortunate enough to find the very man to suit 
 my book. He was a sort of Legal Satellite, but a staunch pirate 
 in his way. I told him what I wanted him to do, and instructed 
 him to become a bosom friend of the Satellite without delay. 
 Luckily they were friends already, and the rest was easy. Solicitor 
 X also became friendly with the Pirate, and took him into 
 confidence. Later on I met the Satellite and the Pirate in 
 company, and the former introduced me to the latter with 
 considerable effusion. The Pirate said he was glad to make my 
 acquaintance and never flickered an eyelid. 
 
 I was proud of the Pirate. He was a red faced, bull-necked 
 man, with shoulders like the hind-quarters of a prize bullock the 
 kind of man who, if he had been a real salt-water buccaneer, would 
 have ruled his crew with a marlinspike. It is impossible to give 
 an idea of his style of speech without using coloured ink, which 
 would look too gaudy in these modest pages. He had also a bluff, 
 reckless manner which was apt to deceive, even such naturally 
 keen judges of crooked character as Solicitor X and my friend, the
 
 40 . THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Satellite. The ordinary person, who might have happened to meet 
 him, would have probably set him down as an uproariously honest 
 citizen, with a fine gift of lurid expression. But I found him a 
 first-class partner in the curiously complicated game of cut-throat 
 euchre, which Solicitor X and his Satellite, and the Pirate and I,, 
 began to play just then. 
 
 I was supposed to believe that the Satellite was playing on my 
 side. The Solicitor and the Satellite really believed that the Piraie 
 was playing on their side. I was to be the "Mug" in the game. The 
 Pirate acted his part beyond praise. He told the others, in his 
 own picturesque manner, that he was not fond of me, and would 
 be glad to assist in taking me down. This, and other pertinent 
 information, he gave me from time to time, when he met me quietly 
 to report progress. When I met him with the others, I showed 
 by my manner that I did not set a high value on his company. In 
 fact, I told the Satellite, in confidence, that I did not care much 
 for his friend. Of course, the Satellite carried this remark to 
 Solicitor X, who was greatly pleased. He wanted to keep the 
 Pirate under his own thumb. The game seemed to him to be 
 already his own, but in order to make sure of it he kept sweet with 
 me, and so did the Satellite. This was just what I wanted. What 
 nights we had together about that time ! Never, I think, were 
 thieves so thick as we were. Solicitor X loved me like a brother, and 
 would have wept tears of affection on my neck if I had permitted 
 him to do so. He told me in a burst of confidence (we were a most 
 confidence-making crowd just then) that a certain reverend gentle- 
 man, with a low-comedy, hyphenated name, had been saying hard 
 things about me in the "Loyal Orange Lodge," and in fact, had. 
 gone so far as to state that, in his opinion, I was a Dangerous 
 Person. There was an eerie unanimity about the way in which 
 various parties picked out this phrase. I began to think that I 
 might carry it to my grave as a descriptive label. But I was 
 re-assured when Solicitor X affectionately informed me that he 
 took no notice of the remark of the clergyman with the low- 
 comedy name. He (Solicitor X) knew me better. Such reports 
 merely amused him. Seeing that, at the very moment he was 
 speaking, he was looking upon me as his particular pigeon, almost 
 ready for plucking, it is no wonder that he was amused. I also 
 was amused, but for a different reason. The Satellite displayed 
 an attachment to me that was dog-like almost. I made the worst 
 jokes I could think of, and they were pretty bad, to try his fidelity, 
 but he never failed to laugh. The Pirate drank gloomily and said 
 nothing. 
 
 The whole of our conversation centred on the letters. No 
 matter what topic was started we alwayscame back to those magnetic 
 epistles. They might have been the letters of Junius, judging by 
 the fuss made over them. But all our conversation and conviviality 
 ended in nothing just then. Solicitor X said that his Principal, the
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 4!' 
 
 Burglar, was having a spell of hard luck, and was willing to make 
 a substantial reduction on his original price for the documents it 1 
 would come to business at once. This I did not feel inclined to 
 do. I meant to get those letters for nothing. 
 
 Then these boon companions grew cold to me. Solicitor X 
 no longer looked upon me as a brother, and the Satellite ceased to 
 regard me with dog-like affection. The Pirate scowled at me in 
 public, and, in private, told me they were making a last desperate 
 attempt to do business with the " Other Side." 
 
 This was my cue to close up, and make them think that I was 
 done with the affair. At the end of the week their knees gave 
 way, and they were no longer haughty. The Pirate told me that 
 they had failed badly with the " Other Side." 
 
 Another week went by, and I still maintained my attitude of 
 indifference. When I saw them in the street I nodded curtly and 
 passed by. Solicitor X began to fear that I might escape his 
 clutches, after all, and turn out to be quite as Dangerous as I w;is 
 described. They were having a really bad time at this period. 
 The Pirate was consulted, and he advised the Solicitor to see me, 
 and come to an understanding. Solicitor X saw me, and made an 
 appointment for that evening. The Satellite was to bring the 
 letters, I was to bring the money. 
 
 The appointment was kept by the Solicitor and the Satellite. 
 The Pirate was not there. They had apparently made up their 
 minds to keep him out of his share of the plunder, and had not 
 told him of the appointment. 
 
 " The money is here," I said. " Where are the letters ?" 
 
 The Solicitor said that they had thought it would be safer not 
 to bring them, but, if I would wait, the Satellite would go and get 
 them. 
 
 I remarked that I had no time to waste that night, and turned 
 on my heel and walked away. 
 
 Next day the Satellite came to see me, and asked me why I 
 had "pegged wide" (another technical term, I believe) of the 
 crowd for so many days. They meant well by me, he said, and 
 wanted to act squarely. It was their Principal, the Burglar. He 
 was making all the trouble. He insisted that the letters should 
 not be delivered until the price of them was in their hands. Would 
 I make another appointment ? 
 
 I replied that I was tired of the whole affair, and intended to 
 wash my hands of it. I had my character to think of, and was 
 hurt by the suspicions that had been cast upon it. I spoke with 
 feeling and vehemence, and the Satellite seemed to be much 
 impressed. Then I told him that, as he had taken so much 
 trouble in the matter, I would see him next day and, if possible, 
 make an end of the business.
 
 .42 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 When he made his appearance next day I told him that " My 
 Side" were weakening on the bargain. 
 
 They had learnt that the letters had been hawked about the 
 City, and considered that the stock was too much depreciated to be 
 worth buying. 
 
 He looked very dismal, and said it was not his fault. It was 
 -the Burglar that was to blame. The Satellite was very unhappy. 
 I made him a little more unhappy by telling him that " My Side " 
 objected to any transactions being conducted with him personally. 
 He seemed to be lost in mournful reverie for a few minutes. Then 
 lie brightened up a little, and asked me if the deal could still be 
 made in case some other party brought me the letters. 
 
 "What other party?" I enquired. 
 He mentioned a name. 
 
 " I don't like him," I replied, "but I think he can be trusted. 
 He'll do." The man the Satellite had chosen was the Pirate. 
 
 The Satellite went away satisfied. I did not laugh until he 
 was well out of hearing. My scheme was working out beautifully. 
 
 The Pirate saw me shortly afterwards and told me the game 
 the others intended to play. He was to hand me the letters at the 
 moment when I gave the Satellite the coin. They were the most 
 suspicious people I ever met. 
 
 Later in the day Solicitor X and the Satellite met me at one of 
 our trysting-spots. They told me that they had communicated 
 with their Principal, the Burglar, and he had instructed them to 
 state that if the money were placed in the hands of some prominent 
 public man, the letters would be delivered to that public man, but 
 on no account were they to be given to me. 
 
 Even the Burglar seemed to share the general belief that I was 
 a Dangerous Person. 
 
 I said that I had no objection to the business being done in 
 this way, but I would have to approve of the public man they 
 selected. I knew that their choice would be limited, on account of 
 the delicacy of the transaction. 
 
 They picked, at the first try, the very man I was praying they 
 would select. My luck was in. " Be on hand here to-morrow at 
 this time," I said, "and bring the letters with you. I will bring 
 the cash. We will see Mr. together." 
 
 This was agreed upon. Then I went away, and made some 
 little arrangements on my own account. 
 
 They kept their appointment punctually. The Pirate was with 
 them. 
 
 " Mr. is now at the Turkish Baths," I said. " We will 
 
 go down and see him, and settle the matter. He has the money. 
 Who has the letters ?"
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO. 4.3* 
 
 The Satellite said that he had them, but would hand them over 
 to the Pirate when we arrived at the Turkish Baths. I was never 
 so much distrusted in my life before. 
 
 In my latest conversation with the Pirate I had instructed him 
 to make a certain signal when he got the letters. I would then 
 give him in charge of the nearest policeman who would not be far 
 away. 
 
 The Satellite and the Pirate walked amicably together towards 
 the place where the Eminent Public Man was supposed to be 
 having his corpulence reduced. 
 
 I stayed behind a few moments, talking with Solicitor X, who 
 was too much ot a Gent, by Act of Parliament to appear publicly 
 in connection with an affair of this sort. Then I left him and 
 followed the two Conspirators. 
 
 I saw them talking outside of the Turkish Baths. But the 
 Pirate did not make the expected signal. Evidently some hideous 
 hitch had occurred. My luck was out. 
 
 I walked away without a word. They followed and overtook 
 me at a street corner. 
 
 " What is the meaning of this ? ' I said angrily. 
 
 " I I didn't bring the letters," replied the Satellite. 
 
 " Didn't bring the letters?" I repeated slowly, glaring at 
 him like a boa-constrictor at a rabbit. 
 
 " N o ," he continued tremulously. " I thought you might 
 get them from me without paying the money. They say you are 
 such a Dangerous Person" 
 
 "You two miserable hounds," I cried, "you would make &- 
 cat's-paw of me, would you ?" 
 
 And, apparently carried away by fury, I made a rush at them. 
 The Pirate pretended to be dreadfully scared, and dodged out of 
 my \vay. The Satellite was not pretending. I never saw a man 
 look more frightened. 
 
 "I left the letters at home," he gasped, "I'll go and get 
 them, and be back in a quarter of an hour." 
 
 " Then go," I said, and to the Pirate, "You go with him. If 
 
 you are not back in fifteen minutes I'll go to Mr. and> 
 
 withdraw the money." 
 
 I hustled them on a tram while I was talking. 
 
 Back they came in less than the time mentioned. 
 
 " Are you sure you have the letters now ?" I said. 
 
 By way of reply the Satellite showed me a packet. 
 
 " Hand it over to him," I said. The Satellite handed it over 
 to the Pirate without a word. 
 I called a cab.
 
 44 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 "Jump In," I said to the Pirate, "and drive to the 
 Exchange. Mr. is there now. We will wait here for you." 
 
 " But I must go, too," protested the Satellite. 
 
 " Not much !" I snapped, " I don't trust you. We will wait." 
 
 By this time the cab, with the Pirate inside, was a hundred 
 yards away. 
 
 " It was arranged that the money should be handed to me," 
 said the Satellite sullenly. 
 
 I thought of Dick Swiveller's pregnant observation, "When 
 the goods are delivered, what can the waiter do ?" I did not 
 mention it, however, but told the Satellite that everything would 
 be all right when the Pirate returned. 
 
 Then I soothed him with a drink, and told him some of my 
 funniest stories to pass away the time. He smiled feebly, with one 
 eye on me and the other on the clock. 
 
 A long hour passed. And then another hour. And the Pirate 
 did not come back. He never came back. 
 
 The Satellite grew paler and paler as the minutes went by. 
 He was ageing rapidly and visibly. His jauntiness had deserted 
 him, and he began to look like a man who had slept in his clothes 
 for a year. I, too, affected to be greatly distressed in mind over 
 the prolonged absence of the Pirate I was called to the telephone. 
 The Pirate was at the other end. He wanted to see me at a certain 
 <~ffi.ce at once. I told the Satellite that I had received a message 
 from Parliament House, and must go there immediately. I would 
 not be away more than twenty minutes. Meanwhile he had better 
 stay where he was, and keep a sharp look-out for the Pirate. I 
 left him standing on the kerbstone, and looking like a shipwrecked 
 sailor on a shark-surrounded reef. 
 
 The Pirate gave me the letters. I examined them and found 
 them to be all correct. Nothing had been kept back. The Pirate 
 was full of profane joy. 
 
 " What story are you going to tell your friends," I said. 
 
 His reply would require too much expurgation to be quotable. 
 
 The gist of it was that he would tell them nothing, as he did 
 not mean to see them. If he should drop across them in a casual 
 way, he would inform them that a detective had seen him in the 
 cab and had arrested him for an old offence. He had thrown the 
 letters away. 
 
 It was not a very artful yarn, but that mattered little. I was 
 not editing detective stories to please the taste of Solicitor X and 
 the Satellite. 
 
 I met these worthies the same evening, and was almost 
 Chocked to see the ravages that had been made in their appearance 
 in the course of a few hours. They looked as miserable as 
 moulting fowls.
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO. 45 
 
 " Where is the money ?" said Solicitor X, speaking like a 
 sick man, and looking- like a dead one. 
 
 " Where are the letters?" I said savagely. " Hasn't your friend 
 your Reliable Man your Trustworthy Agent turned up yet?" 
 
 "Not he," replied the Satellite gloomily. " I waited hours 
 and hours for him, but he never came back." 
 
 Just at that moment the Pirate heaved in sight by mistake. 
 His matchless effrontery carried him through, however. Before 
 they could say a word of reproach to him, or ask him a single ques- 
 tion, he thrust his square, stubbly chin into each of their faces alter- 
 nately, and exclaimed overproof adjectives omitted " That was 
 a nice sort of game you put up on me, was'nt it now?" 
 
 " What game," growled the Satellite. 
 
 "Why, getting me pinched out of the cab by a ' D.' /ou 
 know well enough." 
 
 They denied bitterly that they had done anything of the kind, 
 and wanted to know what had become of the letters. 
 
 " I threw the blanky things out of the blanky cab," he replied. 
 " I was'nt goin' to have 'em found on me at the Police Station." 
 
 There was nothing more to be got out of the Pirate except 
 possible assault and battery if he were annoyed by too many ques- 
 tions. 
 
 The Satellite disappeared, but Solicitor X pervaded a certain 
 hotel till late in the night, telling his tale of woe to everybody who 
 would listen. The last time I saw him he was surrounded by a 
 crowd of ironical sympathisers, who encouraged him to give rein 
 to his grief. 
 
 " It was the only little bit of decent business that has come in 
 my way for a year," I heard him say, " and I've been swindled out 
 of my just whack by rogues and scoundrels. And the poor strug- 
 gling devil who trusted in me, and made me his agent, has been 
 done out of his property. Never got a bean for it, gentlemen. And 
 I never got a bean either. And they call this a Christian land." 
 
 Here Solicitor X broke down and wept. 
 
 I was really sorry for him. But, then, I had won the game, 
 and could afford luxuries. 
 
 THE CONVERSION OF EXTOX. 
 
 IT was about the middle of January last when I began to take an 
 interest in Mr. Exton, with whom Coningham was then lodging. 
 They were like two dicky-birds singing in the one cage in those 
 days. It was " Jim " with one, and " Conny " with the other. Let 
 the reader take note of the latter fact, and beware of the man who
 
 46 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 is called by a diminutive of his surname. The two men are, by 
 the way, somewhat alike in appearance. Both are fair, with light 
 blue eyes, and complexions of a pale-clay colour. Coningham, 
 however, has a hard-baked look which is not noticeable in Exton. 
 The latter is inclined to be somewhat modest and timid, the former 
 has the audacity and cunning of an ape, and the modesty of a 
 phallic symbol. 
 
 Exton and I used to stare at each other a good deal when we 
 met casually. We both seemed to be yearning for a formal intro- 
 duction. It did not come, and I was the first to break the ice ol 
 etiquette by getting beside Exton on a tram-car, and whispering 
 rapidly in his ear, " I want to see you particularly. You are in 
 great danger." 
 
 " I have nothing to do with you," he replied, coldly. But I 
 saw by the flutter of his eyelids that I had made an impression on* 
 him. 
 
 " Be warned in time," I continued. " I will send a messenger 
 to you to make an appointment. Do not fail to keep it." 
 
 Having delivered this mysterious message, I jumped off the 
 car, and vanished from his sight like a secret agent of an assassina- 
 tion club in a Russian romance. 
 
 Next day I sent to him a man whom he knew, asking him to meet 
 me at a certain hour on the day following. I instructed this man 
 to make it clear to Exton that it would be for his own good to see 
 me. He^came. I took him into a private room the appointment 
 was at an hotel. 
 
 "What do you want with me?" he inquired with nervous- 
 abruptness. 
 
 " Many things, Mr. Exton," I replied, suavely, " but nothing 
 that will not be for your own benefit. You are a man with a good, 
 reputation and you are in a fair way to lose ic. Your connection- 
 with the Coninghams will spoil your career if you are not careful. 
 Are you prepared to play the part of a conspirator, and abide by 
 the consequences ?" 
 
 " What do you mean ?" he said, suspiciously. 
 
 " Perhaps you are not aware of how the law stands with regard 
 to matters of this sort? Well, the law is that a person who takes- 
 part in a conspiracy is responsible for the whole of the conspiracy, 
 and liable to be punished accordingly." 
 
 " I'm not a conspirator," he exclaimed, sharply. 
 
 " Are you not in the habit of carrying letters between the 
 Coninghams ?" 
 
 He admitted that such was the fact, but he seemed to be more* 
 worried over how I had obtained the information. 
 
 . " I must think of my billet," he said.
 
 ZERO" No. 2. 
 
 (Copyright.)
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 
 
 47 
 
 I saw that this was the chief difficulty I would have in dealing 
 with him. He was evidently one of those punctilious, red-ruled 
 commercial persons who think that if they lose their billets there is 
 nothing left for them but the cemetery. 
 
 " Where," 1 asked, " will your billet be if Mrs. Coningham 
 doesn't appear in Court, and leaves you and her husband in the 
 lurch ?" 
 
 This suggestion staggered him somewhat. He seemed to 
 think it quite possible that Mrs. Coningham might play some spite- 
 ful trick of the kind. 
 
 I placed his position before him in an even more baleful light. 
 He was greatly depressed. Then I cheered him up a little. " Con- 
 sult your wife on the matter," I said, " and do what she advises. 
 Meet me at this time to-morrow." 
 
 I felt quite secure in trusting to feminine instinct being on the 
 safe side. 
 
 When I saw him next day, I determined to make it clear to 
 him that I did not wish him to take my word alone for his position. 
 " See a solicitor," I said, " and get his advice. Show him a letter 
 of Coningham's, if you can." 
 
 [Facsimile of an Envelope, containing a note, carried by Exton, from 
 Coningham to his wife.] 
 
 Exton said he had one which he had not yet delivered to Mrs. 
 Coningham. I saw him again in the evening. He had, in the 
 meantime, consulted a solicitor, and had shown him the letter referred 
 to. The solicitor said he would consult Counsel on the matter. 
 Exton waited for the result, and was told that, in the opinion of 
 Counsel, he was party to a conspiracy by acting as bearer of such 
 letters while he knew their contents. 
 
 This satisfied him. He showed me a copy of the letter. 
 
 This was another nail in the Coningham coffin ! 
 E
 
 48 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Meanwhile, the solicitor employed by Exton began to take 
 himself too seriously. He seemed to see the opportunity of his 
 life to make himself famous. He told Exton that he should be 
 careful in his dealings with me, as I had the reputation of being a 
 Dangerous Person. Then he called on Mr. Slattery, and showed 
 him the letter left in his charge by Exton. 
 
 I foresaw that I should have trouble with this too-energetic 
 lawyer if I did not put a ring in his nose without delay. 
 
 With this purpose in view, I called on him, and asked him not 
 to tell Exton that he had been to see Mr. Slattery, giving diplo- 
 matic reasons why the information should be withheld. Next day 
 I saw Exton, and spoke to him like an uncle. I commenced by 
 asking him casually if his solicitor had said anything to him about 
 the result of his (the solicitor's) visit to Mr. Slattery. 
 
 " He never told me that he had seen him at all," replied Exton 
 in a tone of indignation. 
 
 I laughed satirically. 
 
 " You see how your solicitor is going to use you," I said. 
 '' He will get from you the strength of your story, and then throw 
 you away like a squeezed orange." 
 
 On the following morning Exton had a new Solicitor a portly 
 person with an unfastidious legal appetite. This gentleman saw 
 me during the day, and informed me in an obese whisper that 
 Exton had told him that Coningham wanted him (Exton) to 
 borrow 10 on his (Exton's) furniture. 
 
 Exton came shortly afterwards, and told me the same story, 
 adding that Coningham would give a promissory note for the 
 money. I then instructed him to see his first solicitor who 
 wanted him to sign some portentous legal document and tell him 
 that he wished to take another day to think over the matter, and, 
 at the same time, let him know about Coningham's scheme for 
 borrowing 10. 
 
 He carried out my instructions faithfully. I then called upon 
 the solicitor, and gave him 10 to give to Exton when he arrived. 
 
 When Exton kept his appointment with me I told him that the 
 solicitor would give him the money. 
 
 " I'll give you the p.n. in the afternoon," he remarked. " I 
 have to meet ' Conny ' at the G.P.O. at lunch time." 
 
 " I'll trust you," I said. 
 
 Exton blushed with pleasure at this mark of confidence. He 
 was my man from that time forward. I had converted him. 
 
 It was a happy thought to advise him to consult his wife. 
 She urged him to tell the truth, and do the right thing, whatever 
 happened. Mrs. Exton, he said, had never liked either Coningham 
 or Mrs. Coningham. Feminine instinct again !
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." 49 
 
 The solicitor gave Exton the /Tio in my presence. It was 
 the last appearance of that legal luminary on the horizon of the 
 Coningham case. 
 
 I happened to be at the G.P.O. at the very moment when 
 Coningham was handing to Exton a newly-blotted p.n. The face 
 of the former was wreathed in smiles, and the latter wore the 
 pleased expression of a philanthropist. He gave me the p.n. 
 later in the afternoon. 
 
 At this time Coningham was in active correspondence with a 
 certain " Zero, ' who was taking an abnormal interest in the case. 
 This much I learnt from Exton, who also informed me that this 
 occult party in question wrote a sort of epileptic script in black- 
 lead pencil. When Coningham received a letter from him he 
 always passed it over to Exton to decipher. This was how the 
 latter knew about the correspondence. 
 
 "You must get me one of those letters," I said. 
 
 " Impossible," replied Exton. " Coningham is very careful 
 of them. He takes them up to Dill-Macky." 
 
 " You suggest to him that as they are written in pencil, which 
 might be easily rubbed out, and are so hard to decipher, it would 
 be a good idea for you to typewrite them." 
 
 He then confessed to me that he had "Zero's" last letter in 
 his possession, but not upon his person at the moment. 
 
 " I must have it," I remarked. 
 
 He shook his head vigorously. 
 
 I insisted. 
 
 He protested. 
 
 Finally I said to him, " I will telephone to you an hour 
 hence." 
 
 I rang him up in an hour, and asked him if he had the letter. 
 
 "Yes," he replied. 
 
 I then sent the able and willing Solicitor No. 2 to ask Exton to 
 meet me in the lane at the back of Pfahlert's Hotel at lunch-time. 
 
 Being a business man he was on the spot to the minute. 
 " Have you the letter ?" I enquired. 
 He said he had left it behind. 
 
 I gave him no time to think, but stunned him with a rapid 
 rush of talk while I drew him along in the direction of the place 
 where the letter was deposited. I think I must have hypnotised 
 him. Anyhow he brought me the letter after an absence of a few 
 minutes. 
 
 "You must let me have it back," he said. " I have to make 
 a type-written copy of it." 
 
 "/'// do that for you," I remarked.
 
 5O 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 When I read the letter I felt so indignant at the odious 
 slanders it contained that I determined to find the writer at all 
 hazards. He had called himself " Zero," and something less than 
 zero he should be, or the fault would be mine. 
 
 I met Exton again a little while afterwards, and gave him 
 back the letter he had entrusted to me, together with a type- 
 written copy of the same. He gave Coningham the latter, according 
 to arrangement. 
 
 " How did Coningham receive the suggestion as to type- 
 writing ?" I enquired. 
 
 " He thought it a grand idea, and gave me three more letters 
 to copy," replied Exton, handing me the epistles in question. 
 
 After that the business was as easy as drinking stout, or eating 
 oysters.
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 
 
 /ke. fa^~vW 
 
 5! 
 
 [Facsimile oj a letter from " Zero " No. 1 to Coningham.] 
 
 " Zero " wrote to Coningham ; Coningham passed the letters 
 to Exton ; Exton passed them to me ; I made type-written copies 
 and gave them to Exton ; Exton gave them to Coningham. 
 Everybody seemed satisfied, though Coningham might not have 
 thought the idea such a grand one if he had known that " Zero's " 
 dark and mysterious missives might almost as well have been open 
 circulars. I was as good as an honorary secretary to Coning- 
 ham at that time. And he never knew. This was one of the 
 amusing features of the game, which lasted until about the 22nd 
 of February, when there came a letter from " Zero " asking 
 Cocingham to write to him on the following Friday and address 
 the envelope to "Delta" (clever ostrich!) in care of a certain 
 suburban post office. 
 
 I was on the trail of " Zero " at last !
 
 -THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 THE TRAIL OF " ZERO." 
 
 I WAS lounging outside the suburban post office on the 
 following Friday at about the time when " Coningham's " letter to 
 " Delta " would be neatly popped into the " D " r'ffeon-hole. 
 
 tl*
 
 Till-: STORY OF " ZERO." 
 
 53 
 
 Nobody called at the delivery window for a long time. It was 
 a hot day, and the nearest hotel was too far away from the post 
 office for me to take risks. But the Roman sentinel who was 
 burned at his post could not have felt more dry than I was. At 
 last I saw a man walk deviously to the delivery window, after casting- 
 furtive glances up and down the street. Something seemed to tell
 
 54 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 me that he was the party I wanted. He did not see me, and 1 
 took a good look at him. He was a little, thin, black-avised, 
 middle-aged man, with snapping" eyes and a cadaverous complexion. 
 After he left the window I went to it, and asked the attendant if 
 there were any letters addressed to "Delta." "I have just 
 delivered one," he said. I thought as much ! 
 
 The little black-avised man got upon a tram that was going 
 to the city. I followed him. He got off at Inglis's Bazaar. So 
 did I. While he was transacting some trifle of business there I 
 made a few casual enquiries about him, and learnt that he was a 
 dairyman of decent character with a milk-walk in the outer 
 suburbs. When he left the Bazaar, I kept on his track until I ran 
 him to earth at a certain house. I knew well enough who lived 
 there. And I am free to confess that I was astounded by the 
 discovery I had made. The man who dwelt in that house had 
 already earned a reputation for eccentricity, but his previous 
 escapades had been of a comparatively harmless nature. If he 
 were the real writer of the " Zero " letters it was clear that he was 
 a malignant maniac, with all the cunning of his kind. He had 
 evidently deceived his clever correspondent. If Coningham had 
 not been one of those unfortunates whom the gods make mad 
 before they destroy them, he would have detected the madness of 
 the other party. Perhaps he had some suspicion of it, but was in 
 such desperate need of an ally that he was glad to accept anybody 
 who came in that guise without asking for a reference as to 
 character, or a certificate of sanity. 
 
 It was, however, necessary to make sure that the man who 
 lived in the house at which the little dairyman had called was the 
 actual writer of the letters. This was not a difficult matter. An 
 innocent enquiry by post brought from the individual in question a 
 brief reply long enough, however, for purposes of comparison 
 with the " Zero" correspondence. The identity of the writer was 
 evident at a glance. To make doubly sure, however, I took the 
 trouble of finding out where he purchased his letter-paper. I 
 bought some and compared it with that upon which the famous 
 letters were written. Same quality ; same peculiar water-mark. 
 The evidence was complete. I had discovered the man for whom 
 I was seeking. 
 
 But here I was confronted with another trouble. If I exposed 
 him I would at the same time prematurely expose my hand to 
 Coningham. There was also a graver reason tor keeping the 
 matter quiet. The Lunatic had friends who were decent people, 
 and not responsible for his actions-, but who would, nevertheless, 
 be socially injured if these actions were made public. Taking 
 these facts into consideration I de-termined to keep the personality 
 of " Zero " in the background. But I proposed first to request 
 his friends to put him where pens, ink, and paper would be beyond 
 his reach, and then, when he was out of the way, to take up his
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 
 
 55 
 
 role and carry on the "Zero" correspondence with Coningham on 
 my own account. 
 
 How this latter part of the scheme was carried out will be seen 
 further oh. 
 
 " Zero " was an amusing lunatic in his way. He began to 
 imagine that he was watched by detectives, and wrote to Coningham, 
 sending him rough drafts of advertisements to be inserted in the 
 Daily Telegraph for the confusion of these disciples of Sherlock 
 Holmes. As thus : 
 
 Monday, February 25. 1901 
 ZERO. Thanks; meeting best of all ; easily and safely arranged 
 
 Wednesday, February 27, 1901. 
 
 ZERO. Apologise, disappointing last night, unavoidable. When, where, 
 again ? 
 
 Friday, March 1, 1901. 
 
 ZERO. To-night, at 7 30, will be there ; everything complete God bless 
 you. 
 
 It was apparently 
 believed by both 
 Coningham and his 
 mad friend that 
 these mystic mes- 
 sages would plunge 
 the supposed de- 
 tectives into a state 
 of hopeless perplex- 
 ity. As the letter 
 containing the 
 rough drafts of the 
 messages came to 
 me in due course, 
 per medium of Mr. 
 Exton, the position 
 of the correspond- 
 ents may be re- 
 garded as amusing, 
 or pathetic as one 
 chooses. 
 
 My next step was 
 to interview the 
 little dairyman at 
 his dairy. In my in- 
 nocence I imagined 
 that a man who was 
 closely associated 
 with mild-eyed 
 cows, and who made 
 
 Personal. 
 
 TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, J901. 
 
 ITT ERv nee* not fear publicity. C. has burnt kt letter* 
 *A Will burn neit. 
 
 FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1901. 
 
 'EKO.- 
 
 I secrecy you and myself. Address Safety^ G. P!O" 
 
 FRIDAr, FEBRUARY S, 1901. 
 
 Z 
 
 aO,-Got 
 
 . Not going awy 
 fcomething. Eon address. Quit, secure 
 
 The "Zero" Advertisements
 
 5" THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 his living by retail- 
 ing their harmless 
 milk must be an in- 
 nocuous and open- " ' " ' 
 minded individual. 
 I was mistaken. I 
 have seldom met a 
 more sourly uncom- 
 municative person ~ 
 than that little dairy- 
 
 faTt, trucuTently * E *SONAL AND BUSSING EBIENPS, 
 reticent until I _ 
 showed him how 
 
 much I knew, and MONDAY, FEBRUARY "18, 190U 
 
 hinted at more. 
 
 Then he threw up ' * 
 
 his hand and told f^ERO. Letter posted to-night, addressed named.; call 
 
 me the history of his " TUMday; everything: secure; don't worry. 
 
 postmanship for 
 
 " Zero." I soon saw MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1901, 
 
 that he was quite - 
 
 ignorant of the na- -^r.Y.z.-TJvrec one five. 
 
 ture of the corres- -A- _ . 
 
 pondence he had IVHRO'. Thanks; meeting jbest of all; easily and safely 
 
 r , , . , A arranged. 
 
 been fetching and 
 
 sTmpt^ acted" tte WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1 9 01. 
 part of an unques. * 
 
 ion ing humble f^Ro. Apologise, disappointing last night, unavoid 
 mend to a man /J, .able. When, where again? 
 
 whom he, for some 
 
 reason or other, 
 
 looked upon as a FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1901. 
 
 benefactor. I did <* 
 
 not enlighten him 
 
 a5 to rhp narnrp nf *./ ERO - To-night, at ^.80, will be there; everything coni- 
 
 to me nature ot j pletc God blos3 you 
 the plot in which he 
 had been made to 
 
 act as an uncon- MONDAY, MARCH 18, 1501. 
 
 scious agent. But 
 
 he was exasperated * 
 
 all the same, and I^EHO. Poor fellow, a coward betrayed yoy. Gfird for- 
 
 expressed a desire "* bid i should be your ruin. 
 
 to be "struck stiff" 
 
 if he ever again 
 
 mixed himself up in The ., Zero Advertisements 
 
 the business of other 
 
 people.
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO. 57 
 
 MRS. CONINGHAM AT " BURRILDA." 
 
 THE house of " Burrilda " stands in a pleasant country, 
 smiling with orchards and vineyards. It looks down on the quiet 
 village of Smithfield noted for cemeteries and from its front 
 windows the Prospect Dam may be seen shining in the distance like 
 a silver shield. Two guava trees, laden with fruit that gleam like 
 topazes, grow on each side of the steps that lead to the front-door. 
 The smoke from the chimneys of the hospitable mansion rises into 
 a clear air in which malaria is unknown. Grape-vines climb over 
 the verandah, and Japanese plums grow in the garden. " Burrilda " 
 would be an ideal home for a philosopher or a poet. 
 
 It was in this idyllic retreat that I first met the lady who was 
 afterwards to become so notorious. I was staying there for a few 
 days, and made myself as agreeable as possible to the other guests 
 in the house. Mrs. Coningham was good enough to talk to me a 
 little, and then it was that I learnt from her own lips that she was a 
 person of consequence, with grand relations. She carried herself 
 like a duchess in a novelette, and, with her assured manner and 
 bold black eyes, was a woman of really striking appearance. I 
 have seen adventuresses upon the stage who did not look their 
 parts half so well. 
 
 The slight acquaintance thus formed in May, 1900, was 
 renewed in the following month, when I met the lady at the Fancy 
 Fair held in the Cardinal's Hall. She was in distress. Her 
 feelings had been hurt She had brought to the fair a barrow-load, 
 or more, of bush flowers, and no place had been reserved for them. 
 They had to be dumped in an obscure corner of the stage. She 
 blamed Dr. O'Haran for this indignity. I said that it was a shame, 
 and was ironically but not too ironically sympathetic. She 
 seemed to think that she had found a friend indeed, and became 
 confidential. She told me that Miss Sheil had been glad and proud 
 of her friendship before she (Miss Sheil) had been introduced to 
 ladies in a higher position. But she (Mrs. C.) had also held a high 
 position, and would hold it again. I listened with cynical amuse- 
 ment to this revelation of character. It did not prejudice me 
 against the speaker. On the contrary, I regarded her as an 
 interesting female who would go far, if she had the opportunity. 
 
 I was not, therefore, as greatly surprised as I might otherwise 
 have been when I was shown the blackmailing letters written by 
 the husband of the belle of " Burrilda " to Dr. O'Haran. Still, I 
 was somewhat astonished at the desperate game played by this 
 pair of adventurers. I suggested that they should be prosecuted 
 out of hand. More charitable and less business-like counsels pre- 
 vailed, however, and instead of being crushed at once, Coningham> 
 and his wife were allowed to become baleful celebrities and public 
 scandals. 
 
 Exton, my faithful henchman, informed me that Coningham
 
 58 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 had on the i8th February sent in his (Exton's) name a telegram to 
 Mr. Miller of " Burrilda." Coningham, during the second trial, 
 denied having sent this telegram, but admitted having written 
 next day a letter which referred to it. The letter is reproduced 
 elsewhere. Both letter and telegram concerned negotiations 
 which Coningham was making for his wife and children to go to 
 "" Burrilda," and stay there for a fortnight. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham went to "Burrilda" on the 22nd February. 
 On the 25th I met, in Sydney, Mr. Miller, the owner of that 
 delectable residence. I knew that he was slightly worried just 
 then. There was a mortgage on " Burrilda," and the mortgagee 
 was about to foreclose. I said that I thought I knew how the 
 matter could be arranged. This was on a Monday. On Tuesday 
 I got a friend to redeem the mortgage, and I then became the 
 owner of the place. On Wednesday, the "Relief of Burrilda" 
 was celebrated with enthusiasm and mixed liquors. A graphic 
 description of this rural revel was given by Mrs. Marquet, the 
 housekeeper, during the second trial. 
 
 If Mrs. Coningham had not been staying at "Burrilda" at 
 that critical period I might not have taken so much trouble to 
 make things pleasant there. But while she was there, " Burrilda" 
 became a place worth watching. It was in order to avoid being 
 hampered in my plans that I acquired a sort of suzerainty over the 
 place. 
 
 On the same day that Mrs. Coningham arrived, a certain 
 " Captain Smith " also became a boarder at " Burrilda." He was a 
 bluff old mariner, with a weather-beaten complexion, and a saline 
 sincerity and heartiness of manner which induced people to make 
 confidences to him on short acquaintance. He made no secret of 
 his reason for being in a place so far away from the sea. He had 
 saved some money, and was looking for a safe investment in the 
 shape of a house and farm. He thought he might be able to make 
 a quiet living out of Summer Boarders, and fruit, and vegetables. 
 The other guests at " Burrilda " believed that he was negotiating 
 for the purchase of the house with its adjoining land. They were 
 amused at the idea of an old shell-back, whose life had been spent 
 in ploughing "the wandering fields of barren foam, "and, no doubt, 
 in cursing his crews from port to port, resolving to spend the even- 
 ing of his days in ploughing the earth, and attending to the require- 
 ments of Summer Boarders. But the Ancient Mariner in question 
 pottered about the place, sampling varieties of soil, and wagging 
 his head wisely as he gave his opinion of their different merits. At 
 other times he prowled through the house, tapping the walls and 
 examining the fastenings of the doors and windows. His fellow- 
 boarders may have thought that he was too much in evidence at 
 times, but they excused him on the ground that he had a right to 
 make sure that everything was in good order before he purchased 
 the property.
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." 59 
 
 " Madame Arnold " thought he was a quaint old gentleman, 
 and was quite interested in his simple conversation. He was a 
 gallant old sea-dog, too, and full of fine salt-water courtesy to the 
 fair sex. One afternoon when they were talking together, ' ' Madame 
 Arnold" said to him, with a fascinating smile, " Do you know who 
 I really am, Captain Smith?" 
 
 Captain Smith, conscious of his own alias, looked at Mr. Miller, 
 who was standing close by, but did not commit himself. 
 
 " I'm Mrs. Coningham," remarked the lady, in the tone of one 
 who reveals an important secret. 
 
 " Mrs. Cunningham ah, indeed," said the Captain, politely, 
 but with a stolid eye. 
 
 "Mrs. C-o-n-i-n-g-h-a-m," repeated the lady, spelling out the 
 name, " Mrs. Coningham of the Divorce Case." 
 
 The eye of the Captain was no longer stolid. He rose up with 
 galvanic activity, and seizing her hand, exclaimed in a voice of 
 husky emotion, " My God, my girl, I'm glad to meet you.'' 
 
 The lady of many aliases lay back in her chair and smiled com- 
 placently. This was, indeed, fame. Then, turning to Mr. Miller, 
 she said meaningly, " You can keep a secret !" 
 
 He could ; he had kept the secret of " Captain Smith," Mariner 
 and Agricultural Expert. 
 
 When Coningham paid his flying visit to " Burrilda"heexpressed 
 some suspicion with regard to the genuineness of the ubiquitous old 
 navigator. 
 
 " Nonsense," said Mrs. Coningham, " he's a dear old gentle- 
 man. I've been talking to him ; he thinks of buying the place." 
 
 " Captain Smith's" real business at " Burrilda " will be found 
 fully described in the account of the second trial. 
 
 "ZERO" No. 2. 
 
 THE original " Zero " now drops out of the drama. His friends 
 on being informed of the part he had been playing, quietly laid 
 their hands upon him and smuggled him out of Sydney. There 
 was so much gratuitous devilry in the creature that they con- 
 sidered it would be better not to let him remain where he would 
 have too many postal facilities, and little black-avised messengers, 
 at bis disposal. 
 
 But though the original actor disappeared from the stage, the 
 part was too important to cut out of the play. It was the key that 
 might be used to unlock the crafty brain of Coningham. There- 
 fore, when ihe old "Zero" had concluded, for the time being at 
 least, his career as a libellous letter-writer and conspiratorial friend
 
 60 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 of Coningham, a new "Zero," with different ends in view, took 
 his place. 
 
 This second "Zero "took up the correspondence where the 
 first " Zero " had dropped it suddenly, and wrote to Coningham a 
 letter to the effect that there must be traitors in the camp, and that 
 he would be wise not to put too much trust in Orangemen. 
 Coningham replied to the old address that he did not put any 
 trust worth speaking of in Orangemen. About this date he 
 received an anonymous letter asking him if there were any truth in 
 the rumour that disastrous evidence against his wife was being 
 worked ur in Brisbane. Mrs. Coningham received a similar letter. 
 And then the second "Zero" wrote to Coningham and told him 
 that he (" Zero ") had heard that the O'Haran party were busy in 
 Brisbane hunting up witnesses to ruin his Case. The writer con- 
 cluded by urging Coningham to go to Brisbane at once and put a 
 stop to these lies. The wife-exploiter was in a cleft stick. Mrs. 
 Coningham, in consequence of the letter she had received, wanted 
 him to go to Brisbane, and his trusty correspondent also wanted 
 him to go to Brisbane. But Dill-Macky and Co. strongly advised 
 him not to go to Brisbane. The counsel of the former parties 
 prevailed, and Coningham went to Brisbane and stayed in that 
 City twenty-four hours, chasing wild geese. 
 
 Before he left for Brisbane, however, he wrote to his corres- 
 pondent asking the latter to meet him at the Strathfield Railway 
 Station on a certain evening. He would then be on his way up 
 North, and would wear a dark suit, straw hat, with a dent and 
 turned up on one side, and khaki tie with red-and-white colours. 
 He had most important news to communicate. " Zero " No. 2 
 had his reasons for not being too ostentatious in his dealings with 
 Coningham, and replied declining the interview, on the ground 
 that it would be madness for them to meet by daylight in such a 
 public place, for if he " Zero" were discovered, he would have to 
 eat grass in the Domain for the rest of his life. He added that if 
 Coningham thought an interview was necessary, he would meet 
 him at 7.45 on the following Saturday evening in Macquarie Street, 
 between Government House gates and the Bent Street entrance to 
 the Domain. 
 
 The reader has probably guessed, by this time, who the 
 second " Zero " was. There is, therefore, no reason why I should 
 speak of myself in the third person any longer. 
 
 Up to this point, my task had been comparatively easy. I 
 had merely to write in the character of " Zero," but now the time 
 had arrived for me to talk as " Zero." I was, however, beginning 
 to know my Coningham. I knew that he was a nervous and 
 suspicious person. I determined to appear to be even more suspicious 
 and nervous. I knew that he loved to keep his movements dark. 
 I would be as dark as the inside of a black dog at midnight. This 
 would not surprise Coningham, as the original " Zero" had wrapped
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." 
 
 6l 
 
 his personality in a sable shroud of mystery. I was also aware that 
 Coningham believed himself to be a born actor. This was another 
 fact in my favour. Your born actor seldom suspects other people 
 of being- able to act. 
 
 At about seven o'clock on the appointed evening I was in a 
 house in Macquarie Street, dressing for the part I was about to 
 play. As it was already dusk, and Coningham had never seen his
 
 62 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 [Facsimile of a letter written by Coningham to " Zero " No. 2, on 4th March, 1901 .] 
 
 correspondent in the flesh, I did not think it necessary to assume a 
 very elaborate disguise. Of course, he had met me as myself on 
 a previous occasion in a bar, after the conclusion of the First 
 Trial, when I saw him in the company of Solicitor X and others. But
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO. 
 
 [Envelope containing Coningham's letter to " Zero " No, 2, dated 4th March, 1901.~\ 
 
 [Back of Envelope of March 4th.'] 
 
 it was unlikely that he would recognise me agfain. Besides, he was 
 almost certain to have formed some kind of idea of the probable 
 personal appearance of "Zero," based on the character of the 
 letters he had received from this cryptic correspondent. If I could
 
 64 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 look somewhat like the manner of man he expected to see, all 
 would be well. I would have liked to have worn a long black 
 Spanish cloak, and a wide-brimmed felt hat, and carried a con- 
 cealed dagger. But, unfortunately, I had to sacrifice the 
 picturesque for the practical. I wore a plain, dark overcoat with 
 the collar turned up, a slouch hat with the brim pulled down, and 
 a pair of goggles. The goggles themselves were disguise enough. 
 Instead of a dagger, I carried a blackthorn stick, with spines many 
 and sharp. 
 
 I was at the trysting spot a few minutes before the time 
 appointed. The sky was overcast with heavy clouds, between 
 which the moon shone intermittently. The street was buried in 
 the shade of the high houses. The lamps, set far apart, seemed to 
 accentuate the loneliness of the place, and the dark foliage of the 
 shrubs behind the low wall and iron railings on "the park-side of 
 the street made a background of solid gloom for the coming secret 
 interview. I heard a sound of footsteps -rapid, stealthy, lupine 
 in the distance. I knew that Coningham was appro ching. As he 
 drew near me, he crouched low for a moment to get me in silhouette. 
 He appeared to be satisfied with this brief reconnaissance, 
 and, as he passed me, whispered "Zero!" "Deli.i!" I replied 
 hoarsely. I thought he would have fallen upon my neck there and 
 then. He -was glad to see me. But it was not my game to be too 
 familiar with him all at once. I wanted to be taken into his entire 
 confidence, and to be shown the secret machinery oi his plot, but I 
 did not desire to give him an opportunity of askin ' me awkward 
 questions. I began the conversation by stating that I believed I 
 had been followed to the rendezvous. I had seen some queer- 
 looking characters lurking in the lane through which I had just 
 passed. Were they his accomplices, and if so, did be wish to ruin 
 me by exposing my identity? Was this to be my reward for all I 
 had done for him ? I spoke in a tone of bitterness. Coningham 
 was greatly flurried as I wished him to be and assured me on 
 his honour (his valuable honour) that he would rather lose his Case 
 than have me discovered, since I had been so kind and so true to 
 him. When I called to mind the cruel and infamous mendacities 
 contained in the letters written by the original " Z ro," I thought 
 that Coningham had curious ideas of kindness and truth. But I 
 kept this thought to myself. 
 
 " Those men you saw in the lane," he said, " are lovers." 
 "They look more like burglars," I remarked. 
 
 " They are waiting for the servant-girls in tru uses opposite 
 to come out for a walk. We have nothing to fear rom them." 
 
 Thus did he set my mind at ease I felt i lined to laugh 
 immoderately. The men in question were frieiu, of mine who 
 wanted to be spectators of the interview from a distance, yet near 
 enough to be able to rush in and save me if Coningham should
 
 'W/MK 
 
 1V ,vwwr 
 
 I^. fVWC 
 
 I T^^ ^iT "^ *" " I v ^\ v ' "~ * "^ * I u ' * f^. 
 
 ^M^rtl^ Sft1t4wl 
 
 iHo *g-^ ^ W 

 
 66 THE COMNGHAM CASE. 
 
 -vt*-j 
 
 
 
 It U llt&fcl 
 
 [Facsimile of a letter from "Zero " No. 2 to Coningham.~\ 
 
 penetrate my disguise. It was a poor reward for their loyalty 
 that Coningham should mistake them for kitchen-Lotharios, and 
 that I should have to say that they had the appearance of burglars. 
 But it was all in the game. 
 
 This little by-play had the effect I intended. It made 
 Coningham zealous to prove that he was playing fair with me. 
 His confidences gushed freely ; he perspired secrets. He told me 
 that his principal witness would be Mrs. Bonner. 
 
 " I fixed her," he said, speaking quickly and nervously. 
 " She is very poor. I gave her some beer, and some stout, and a 
 bottle of whisky." 
 
 The idea of assisting a poor lady by giving her bottles of beer, 
 and stout, and whisky struck me as distinctly comic. Coningham 
 continued, " And I gave her a pair of boots and two pounds ten." 
 
 "The lady needed some persuasion," 1 observed drily. 
 
 " She did," he replied, emphatically. " 1 also told her she 
 should have ^100 if she did all I required of her. She is under
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." 67 
 
 my thumb now. I am going to take her to Exton's to-night, and 
 she will stay there over to-morrow night. She will then be safe 
 from " here the infatuated creature mentioned my name " and 
 his minions." 
 
 "But of what use will she be to your case? She has nothing 
 to tell that would be admitted as evidence anywhere." 
 
 "I know that," he remarked, "but she will be present in 
 Court, and I can call upon her. That will have a dramatic effect. 
 People will say that where there is smoke there must be fire." 
 
 " Coningham," I exclaimed, " you are a wonder !" 
 
 This seemed to please him, and he proceeded to still further 
 astonish me with his cleverness. 
 
 "The Reverend Dill-Macky," he said, " is busy fixing up the 
 Jury. He has prepared lists for all his ministers in the City and 
 Suburbs, and they are looking up the names. The instructions are 
 to strike off all Roman Catholics and all hotel-keepers." 
 
 " Splendid strategy," 1 remarked. " But you must not stop 
 at that. In one of my letters I warned you against putting too much 
 trust in Orangemen. I had good reason for what I said. There 
 are certain Orangemen " (I named a few who were pillars of the 
 L.O.L.) " who must be kept off the Jury at any cost. They are, I 
 am told, great talkers in the Lodge, but outside of it they are 
 business men, and would lose their Roman Catholic customers if 
 they found O'Haran guilty." 
 
 Two of the men I had mentioned were included in the Jury 
 Panel. They were bitter, black Orangemen, and would have sat 
 till they were blue-mouldy before they would have found Dr. 
 O'Haran innocent. Coningham made a note of their names, and 
 said he would see that they were struck off. He then described 
 to me how he and his committee met regularly in the Presbyterian 
 Manse in Jamieson Street and laid traps, and dug pitfalls, for the 
 feet of the O'Haran scouts and spies. 
 
 " We almost live with Dill-Macky," he chuckled. 
 "Don't put too much trust in him, either," I remarked. 
 
 " I don't," replied Coningham " He doesn't even know 
 where I am to-night." 
 
 "All the better. You can't be too careful just now. Have 
 no confidant but me, and you will come out all right." 
 
 He said he would take my advice, as he knew that I was the 
 best friend he had. 
 
 He believed me to have a bitter private grudge against Dr. 
 O'Haran. I encouraged him in this belief, but would not explain 
 to him the nature of the grudge, merely giving him to understand 
 that, like Mercutio's wound, though it might not be as deep as a 
 well, nor as wide as a church door, it would serve. I a'so allowed
 
 68 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 him to learn that it was of comparatively recent date just previous 
 to the First Trial, in fact. Up till then I had been on terms of in- 
 timacy with Dr. O'Haran, and was acquainted with most of his 
 movements. All this did Coningham most potently believe, and, 
 naturally, looked upon me as an ally whose price was above rubies. 
 What pleased him still more was the knowledge that I did not want 
 a share in the possible plunder, but was ready to help in ruining the 
 Doctor for the pure malignant joy of the deed. 
 
 I winked at myself behind the shelter of my goggles. 
 
 We walked along slowly, without speaking, for a few minutes. 
 The moon that night looked down on a man who was racking his 
 brain to find the surest plan for ruining an innocent priest, and 
 upon another man who was apparently his aider and abettor in the 
 intended crime. If the moon took any notice of us she must have 
 thought we were a pretty pair. 
 
 " I have been thinking," said Coningham, breaking the silence, 
 " that it was an error to have named the 2gth of June as the date 
 of the adultery, at the last trial. There were too many witnesses 
 to prove O'Haran's alibi. This had a bad effect on the Jury. I 
 fancy" he spoke slowly, and regarded me with a cunning leer 
 " I fancy my wife must have made a mistake in the date." 
 
 " You seem to forget that she swore to it," I said. 
 
 He smiled. " I think that if we tried we could discover a 
 reason for changing it," he said. " For instance, she says the day 
 was wet. I could look up the calendar and find a wet day about 
 the 2gth of June, and she could swear to that." 
 
 I knew Mrs. Coningham to be a versatile lady, but I hinted 
 that it might be safer for her to be true to one perjury than to flirt 
 with several. Her husband, however, had no fear of her breaking- 
 down after she had learnt the story she was to tell. He was evi- 
 dently proud of her ability. 
 
 " Don't you think you could suggest a more suitable date ?" 
 he said, insinuatingly. 
 
 I reflected a moment. Then I said, " If you change the date 
 you must be certain to pick a better one in its place. I can give 
 you two dates April ist and April 3oth when Dr. O'Haran was 
 in the Presbytery, and might have been in company with your wife. 
 I was there myself, and I ought to know. There was nobody else 
 present. I know a cabman who will do anything for me he is in 
 my power, and cannot help himself and who will swear that he 
 drove a certain lady to the Presbytery on those dates." 
 
 "That will be grand," said Coningham. 
 
 Dr. O'Haran was at Lewisham on the ist and at Waitara on 
 the 30th April. 
 
 Coningham was thus about to work his hardest to prove two 
 alibis each more conspicuous than the one proved at the First 
 Trial - for his enemy !
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 69 
 
 The spii -r was going to be caught in his own web. This, I 
 regarded, as rue boomerang strategy ! 
 
 "There i-- something else I want to speak to you about," he 
 remarked. " I learn that in the Roman Catholic Church marriage 
 celebrated by a heretical minister is regarded as invalid." 
 
 I wondered who had told him this outrageous yarn. If Mr. 
 Dill-Macky was his informant, then I had made a grave mistake as 
 to the real character of that reverend humorist, who evidently 
 looked upon Coningham and his wild-cat committee as his own 
 private circus, run for his own amusement. 
 
 Coningham continued : " My wife and I were married in the 
 Church of England, consequently in the eyes of O'Haran she is 
 merely my n istress, and, therefore, when I asked him, ' Did you 
 commit adultery with my wife?' he could swear with an easy con- 
 science that he had never done so. But I mean to catch him during 
 this coming trial for I will ask him, ' Did you ever have improper 
 relations with ihat woman' pointing to Mrs. Coningham." 
 
 The amazine idiocy of this notion was almost too much for 
 me, but Coningham was as proud as a rooster who thinks he has 
 laid an egj,' I controlled my features - the goggles were of in- 
 valuable assistance just then and told him that I thought he had 
 his enemy u or his heel. 
 
 And theii we parted, after having made an arrangement to 
 meet again n the following night. 
 
 " Good-h\ e," he said. " God bless you !" 
 The Crocodile ! 
 
 THE SECOND ASSIGNATION. 
 
 "Be with me there; I shall not fail. 
 To meet thee in that hollow vale." 
 
 THE night v. . dark, and a drizzling rain was falling. The Domain 
 was appar. deserted. Even the derelicts of Fortune who make 
 their beds r the trees had gone into the City to keep themselves 
 
 dry in arch- ys and beneath verandahs. Two of my friends, who 
 had lurked the lane during my previous interview with Coning- 
 ham, in 1 -': ' "p^r following me on this occasion. They carried 
 loaded rev* is, and crept stealthily from tree to tree through the 
 pitch-dark it. Coningham could scarcely have seen them if he 
 had carried inan-of-war's search-light; but that did not matter. 
 They meant to play the game properly, with the right amount of 
 mystery ami -lesperation. Coningham, they argued, might have 
 discovered my identity since our last meeting. If so, he would
 
 70 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 probably want to kill me. They intended to avenge me if they 
 could not save me. I was grateful to these brave and devoted 
 friends, but would have felt a good deal less nervous if they had 
 not been so close behind me. 
 
 The figure of Coningham was dimly visible by the flicker of a 
 corporation lamp. 
 
 "Zero!" 
 " Delta !" 
 
 " I have much to tell you," said the ferret-eyed man ; "come 
 under the trees." 
 
 " Not me," I replied. " How do I know that you have not 
 some friends perched in the branches ?" 
 
 " Still suspicious ?" he exclaimed, querulously. " What friends 
 could I have there ?" 
 
 "God knows Dill-Macky, perhaps," I remarked. 
 
 He laughed bitterly. " Dill-Macky isn't the kind of man to 
 roost in a tree on a wet night even for my sake," he said. 
 
 We remained on the footpath within the faint circle of lamp- 
 light for the time. I was afraid that if we went under the trees he 
 might discover my friends, and precipitate a tragedy. 
 
 After thanking me effusively for the information I had given 
 him on Saturday night, Coningham informed me that his committee 
 had kept the Sabbath holy at Mr. Dill-Macky's manse by discussing 
 what names should be struck out of the Jury Panel. Amongst the 
 names struck out were those of the two bitter, black Orangemen, 
 against whom I had warned Coningham. This was pleasing news. 
 
 He then told me that he had urged his wife to fix on the dates 
 I had mentioned ist and 3oth April and she had jumped at the 
 suggestion. It did not take her two minutes to remember dis- 
 tinctly that she was with Dr. O'Haran on those dates. But she 
 was in his company at night on each occasion. She thought it 
 would be safer to swear to the nights. Saint Sapphira wished to 
 be too clever. 
 
 I suggested that as the dates would be new importations into 
 the Case, it would be unwise to make too much of them. It 
 might be better for Mrs. Coningham to swear to adultery having 
 taken place on one of the dates say the 3oth April. 
 
 " Very good," said Coningham, " she shall swear to that. But 
 what about the ist of April?" 
 
 " Just let her say that she posted O'Haran an envelope con- 
 taining a blank sheet of paper, and called at the Presbytery to make 
 an April fool of him. But be sure to impress upon her that she 
 must swear to the afternoon and not to the night of the 3oth. I 
 was not at the Presbytery at night, and if she stuck to that time i 
 would be of no use as a witness."
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." Jl 
 
 Coningham said he would see that she did not forget this im- 
 portant fact. 
 
 "To-morrow," I continued, "I will send you the cabman I 
 told you about, who will swear in Court that he drove a certain 
 lady to the Presbytery on the dates for which we have arranged. 
 He will bring a note to you from me. Read it, and return it by 
 him." 
 
 " I have to be at Dill-Macky's at nine o'clock in the morning. 
 When and where shall I see the cabby ?" 
 
 " At 9'2O a.m., at the corner of Jamieson and George Streets." 
 Coningham said he would be there. 
 
 He then informed me that Mrs. Bonner was secure, and that 
 Miss F y was also safe. I congratulated him on his clever- 
 ness,- and he rose to the bait immediately. 
 
 " I should be on the stage," he observed. "You remember 
 when I called O'Haran ' a lecherous thing' during the First Trial ? 
 Well, I was just going to seize him by the throat and make a scene, 
 but I was doubtful of the effect it might have on the Jury. It 
 might have made them sympathise with O'Haran. Yes, I can act 
 all right. During my bankruptcy examination I fainted, and had 
 to be carried out of Court. They were all deceived. I am a born 
 actor, as sure as you live." 
 
 These revelations, and the rhodomontade that accompanied 
 them, would have been more amusing if I had listened to them in 
 a comfortable room with something to drink on the table. But 
 we were standing in the rain like two homeless vagrants. There 
 was nothing grand or picturesque about conspiracy carried on 
 under these auspices. Coningham again suggested that we should 
 go under the trees, and I again replied with an emphatic negative. 
 As we were arguing the point, we heard a sound of footsteps 
 coming in our direction. 
 
 1 affected to be greatly alarmed and exclaimed "These are 
 accomplices of yours, I suppose. Good God, am I to be discovered 
 and driven to eat grass, after all ?" 
 
 "Oh man, man," cried Coningham, "why will you always 
 distrust me !" 
 
 He thrust his hand in his pocket, and whipped out a loaded 
 revolver the famous nickel-plated weapon lent him by that man 
 of peace, the Rev. Dill-Macky "I'll blow the brains out of the 
 first man who comes near us," he cried, glaring ferociously into 
 the darkness. The cold hand of Fear was on me at that moment. 
 My friends were under the trees only a few yards away, and could 
 hardly help seeing the nickel-plated gun flashing in the dim lamp- 
 light. They would probably imagine that Coningham had found 
 me out, and was about to shoot me. Would they shoot at him 
 first, without waiting to make enquiries ? If they did, I should be
 
 72 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 either badly wounded, or dead, in another minute. I knew the 
 kind of marksmen they were. Fortunately for all parties, the 
 persons whose footsteps had nearly caused a catastrophe came 
 staggering by at this critical juncture. They were merely some 
 honest drunken sailors, who knew little, and cared less, about the 
 conspiracy they had temporarily disturbed. 
 
 Coningham put away his gun, and I breathed freely once more. 
 And then an unhallowed inspiration came to me and I said 
 " When you are cross-examining Dr. O'Haran, be sure to ask him 
 to produce his Liber Factorum Clericorum" 
 
 " His what?" said Coningham. 
 
 " His Priest's Diary showing where he was, and what he was 
 doing at all hours of the day. Every priest is bound to carry a 
 Liber Factorum Clericorum" 
 
 This gross fable I palmed off on him out of pure gratuitous 
 devilment. A man who could believe the yarn he had told me at 
 our previous interview, about the doctrine of the Roman Catholic 
 Church with regard to marriage, could be made to swallow any- 
 thing. As it happened, however, Coningham did not mention the 
 Liber Factorum Clericorum in his subsequent cross-examination of 
 Dr. O'Haran. Some wiser head prevented him in time from 
 making this latest variety of ass of himself. Of course, there is no 
 such book in existence. 
 
 It was long past midnight when we took leave of each other. 
 Coningham was wet, but confident. " When the Trial is over," 
 he said, " we'll go for a trip into the country, and have a 
 tremendous time. Fizz and Flor de Narves," he said, " and all 
 the luxuries," he said, "and all at the expense of that wicked 
 sinner, O'Haran," he said. 
 
 And I hummed by way of reply 
 
 Then let the stricken Doctor weep, 
 
 The Coninghams will play, 
 For some must sow, and some must reap, 
 
 So runs the world away. 
 
 He disappeared in the rain and the darkness, and my heroic 
 friends, who had got soaked through under the trees, overtook me, 
 and we went to a comfortable room where there was something 
 to drink on the table. 
 
 AFTER THE ASSIGNATION. 
 
 There was no sleep for me on that busy Sunday night. After 
 the departure of Coningham, my friends and I went to the house of 
 one of them, and changed as many of our garments as we could 
 find substitutes for in his wardrobe. On our way there we met 
 Exton and*his massive lawyer, and the latter gave me a letter that 
 Mrs. Coningham had written to her husband. This was the letter
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO.' 
 
 73 
 
 that was subsequently produced in evidence, and which Mrs. 
 Coningham denied having written. When I had removed my wet 
 clothes, and taken the taste of the talk with Coningham out of my 
 mouth, I lay down upon a sofa to wait for the morning light, and 
 when it came I photographed this document which, by the way, 
 was accompanied by prescriptions written by Dr. Marshall and Dr. 
 Chenhall, which I also photographed. I then went out in 
 the streets again, hunting for my friend the cabman, to instruct 
 him in the small part he was to play in the coming performance. 
 I had spoken the truth when I told Coningham that I knew a 
 cabman who would do anything for me. But what I said he would 
 do was not quite so veracious. Even if I had wished it, I could not 
 have persuaded him to commit perjury on any account. Perjury 
 on behalf of the Coninghams would be too grotesquely imbecile, 
 not to say infamous, to be suggested to the most abandoned of 
 cabmen.
 
 74 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 I found my Jehu, and told him to come to me at nine o'clock 
 that morning. At a quarter-past nine I gave him a letter to take 
 to Coningham. It was a brief epistle, stating that the bearer was 
 the party of whom I had spoken, and cautioning Coningham not 
 to say much to him. It also laid further stress upon my previous 
 advice that Mrs. Coningham should stick to the afternoons of April 
 ist and 3Oth, and be certain to say that she was with Dr. O'Haran 
 before six o'clock. I enclosed a blank envelope, in which I requested 
 Coningham to place my letter, after he had read it, and hand the 
 envelope to the cabman. Coningham carried out my instructions 
 exactly. He showed the cabman a portrait of Mrs. Coningham, 
 and described the dress he (the cabman) should say that she wore 
 when he drove her to the Presbytery. 
 
 (Facsimile of a note written by Mrs. Coningham to Coningham on the 
 afternoon of the 10th March.) 
 
 /_ 
 
 (Memorandum from Mrs. Coningham to Coningham, written on the 
 evening before the trial.)
 
 THE STORY OF "ZERO." 75 
 
 Next day, when she was examined, Mrs. Coningham spoke 
 like a ventriloquist's puppet. She said precisely what I had told 
 her husband to instruct her to say. They were both apt pupils, 
 and worked with zeal for their own undoing. 
 
 Photographic reproductions of Mrs. Coningham 's letter to her 
 husband and the medical prescriptions, and of the letter I sent by 
 the cabman, are given herewith. 
 
 [Continued on next page.]]
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 * ^ 
 
 [M-rs. Coningham to Coftingham, 10th March.}
 
 THE STORY OF " ZERO." 
 
 77
 
 78 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 is? ELIZAEETM STREET. 
 
 HVDC PA3IC. 

 
 MR JUSTICE OWEN. 
 
 (By I'cnni.-sioii of the "Catholic- 1'rcM.")
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 ON Monday, the nth March, the notorious Coningham case again 
 came before Judge and Jury for decision on the issues set forth in the 
 former case, which were, to wit : 
 
 1. Marriage on March nth, 1893. 
 
 2. Whether the Respondent, between June 15th, 1898, and September 3Oth, 
 1899, committed adultery with Denis Francis O'Haran, the Co-respondent, at 
 St. Mary's Cathedral and buildings adjacent thereto, at Sydney, in the State of 
 New South Wales. 
 
 3. Whether the Co-respondent, between those dates committed adultery 
 with the Respondent. 
 
 4. What amount of damages should be paid by the Co-respondent in respect 
 of the adultery (if any) by him committed. 
 
 The second trial, like the first, was specifically known as a trial 
 in a divorce suit, Coningham v. Coningham, Co-respondent O'Haran. 
 The parties were Arthur Coningham, chemist and cricketer, Alice 
 Stanford Coningham (tide Dowling) his wife, and Denis Francis 
 O'Haran, Administrator of St. Mary's Cathedral, a Doctor of 
 Divinity, and Secretary to his Eminence Cardinal Moran. 
 
 As on the former occasion, Mr. J. H. Want, K.C., and Mr. A. 
 G. Ralston, instructed by Mr. T. M. Slattery, appeared for Dr. 
 O'Haran. The Petitioner appeared on his own behalf. Counsel for 
 Respondent did not appec.r. The damages to the Petitioner's honour 
 and happiness were assessed at "5,000. The new case was tried by 
 Mr. Justice Owen and a special Jury of twelve. 
 
 The Jurymen were : Breen, John, Publican, 74 Rose Street, 
 Sydney ; Butler, Richard, Town Traveller, Boulevard, Petersham ; 
 Coleman, William Joseph, Builder, Kensington Road, Summer Hill ; 
 Dehn, William, Commercial Traveller, Boyle Street, Mosman ; 
 Frankel, Martin, Accountant, Avenue Road, Mosman ; Hartman, 
 Frederick, Gentleman, Prenner Street, Marrickville ; Jacobs, Nathan, 
 Clothing Manufacturer, 26 Great Buckingham Street, Redfern ; 
 Lawrence, James, Lime Merchant. Baltic Street, Newtown ; 
 Leplastrier, Claude, J. P., GeneralAgent, Sutherland Road, Chatswood ; 
 Mahoney, John, Publican, 200 Sussex Street, Sydney ; Scott, William 
 James, Tailor, Lane Cove Road, North Sydney ; Smith, Sydney 
 George, J.P., Storekeeper, Lackey Street. 
 
 [Two of the Jury were Roman Catholics, two of the ancient Hebraic Faith ; 
 the others of various Protestant denominations.]
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Cjnircb fibnsf, 
 
 Janrieson Sirttt, 
 
 ,ioor. 
 
 *" 
 
 ^ "/fcj^jj' ^-r x c^ ^X^-_ 
 
 /? ^^%o ^%^ ^d^^ * '^W~*';*C~~ 2* ^ 
 
 ^/3s$> ^^- ^s^ jZ^^^aJ2*~%^- 
 
 ^ /XV .x^v ^/ . / ^ /^> t4*r^^t*~ 
 
 &^^ 
 
 '+/* 2* ' ^ 
 
 *-rliZrt<? TfT'tres-r' ^/4-W. 
 
 ^/3 ls%L^ J& c&t^Zs;?' ;%u^^ ^X ^ax^^ 
 
 /^ *%^37^> ~7%;>a / zr n . frtrrnS /C K ?v7tt-7' ^7^^8>^r "X^ _7^ 
 
 ^7 ^ ",< ; v^* / ^w^fc 
 
 X7 iZv^Lvf &&, j*S/ 
 
 /f 4>%#^S'^* ~&y6^ 2 
 
 / s f/ / J, ^ l_-i 
 
 r^^^X^*-^ ?7;*x*+S 
 
 s&^rz^y&s
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 8l
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 9 Jamrtso 
 
 IflOI, 
 
 i'z'2^SWle*z^, 
 
 ^^ /^4^<^L2^ 
 
 - /? /? /f C/%* &ZifC*a-t*<^r ~ <s / it***&^riCc. 
 
 ^toJte^U^t^r^y* <5*ggl^ -^, <2X ^rt^/fyf*^ 
 
 ^y y^ 
 
 
 ["The Famous Jury List."]
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 83 
 
 The witnesses called during the progress of the trial were, for 
 Dr. O'Haran : 
 
 REBUHTON SEYMOUR EYRE POWELL, representing the Post- 
 master-General. 
 
 HIRAM ASA Moss, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New 
 South Wales. 
 
 GEORGE RELPH, Law Stationer and Expert in Hand-writing. 
 
 ALEXANDER STEWART, Chief Inspector of the Australian Joint 
 Stock Bank. 
 
 JAMES ARTHUR DOWLING, of Messrs. Dowling and Taylor, 
 Solicitors of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. 
 
 DENIS FRANCIS O'HARAN, Co-respondent. 
 
 ANNIE VALLINCE, Postmistress at Smithfield. 
 
 HORACE CAMPBELL, Journalist, on the Staff of the Australian 
 Star. 
 
 HUGH ALEXANDER PIGGOTT CONANT, Journalist, on the Staff of 
 the Catholic Press. 
 
 HENRY EDWARD JORDAN, J.P., Hornsby Junction. 
 
 SYLVESTER BURKE, Orchardist and Fruit-grower, Pymble. 
 
 CORNELIUS JOSEPH MORRISSETT, Officer of the Customs Dept. 
 
 JAMES FITZGERALD, Waitara. 
 
 AUGUSTUS TIMOTHY M'SHANE, Employee in the Money Order 
 Office at the Savings Bank, Sydney, 
 
 CARLOS H. SIMMONDS, Labour Agent. 
 
 WILLIAM RICHARD DARVEY. 
 
 THOMAS PHELAN, Priest in charge St. Thomas', Lewisham, 
 
 ELLEN M'!NERNEY. 
 
 JOHN WALLACE, Senior Constable. 
 
 MICHAEL KIRBY, Priest in charge, Sacred Heart, Pymble, Lane 
 Cove. 
 
 GEORGE HENRY BARROW, Reporter, on the Staff of the Svdney 
 Morning Herald. 
 
 HAMILTON GOULD LYNE, Reporter, on the Staff of the Daily 
 Telegraph. 
 
 PATRICK JAMES BUTLER, Articled Clerk in the office of West- 
 garth, Nathan and Co. 
 
 JAMES KILLIAN, Hairdresser, residing in Pitt-street. 
 
 OLIVER DEANE, Overseer, Sydney Town Hall. 
 
 MARTIN CARRICK, Mayor's Orderly, Sydney Town Hall. 
 
 THOMAS EDWARD MURPHY, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of 
 New South Wales. 
 
 BERNARD FRANCIS PURCELL, Department of N.S.W. Govern- 
 ment Railways. 
 
 JOHN FRANCIS HENNESSEY, Architect. 
 
 THOMAS JOSEPH M'CABE, Salesman. 
 
 JOHN PATRICK SHEEHAN, Secretary of St. Vincent de Paul 
 Society. 
 
 HENRY TOMLINSON, Editor of the Licensing Guardian.
 
 84 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 SAMUEL BARR, Clerk of Works at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 GEORGE STEWART BROWN, Builder. 
 
 PATRICK LANGTON, Sacristan at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 WILLIAM ADAM DIXON, Chemical and Analytical Expert. 
 
 JOHN ' FRANCIS MOONEY, Bookseller and Stationer, Oxford 
 Street. 
 
 W. BARRY, Priest at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 FREDERICK CHARTERIS, Official Shorthand Writer to the Court, 
 
 JOHN GALVIN, Churchwarden at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 WILLIAM RALEIGH SAYERS, Assistant Accountant at the Com- 
 mercial Bank, Sydney. 
 
 HUGH CONLEY, Clerk at the Union Bank, Sydney. 
 
 ROWLAND KEAN, Clerk at the Sydney General Post Office. 
 
 JOHN O'GORMAN, Priest at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 TRENERY MARQUET, Housekeeper, " Burrilda," Fairfield. 
 
 WILLIAM GEORGE WATERS, Private Detective. 
 
 JAMES EXTON, Shorthand W T riter and Clerk. 
 
 JOHN GALLAGHER, Delivery Clerk at the Sydney General Post 
 Office. 
 
 ARTHUR 'WALPOLE, Delivery Clerk at the Sydney General Post 
 Office. 
 
 PETER TREACY, Priest in charge at Nyngan. 
 
 For Arthur Coningham, chemist and cricketer : 
 
 ARTHUR CONINGHAM, Petitioner. 
 
 ALICE STANFORD CONINGHAM, Respondent. 
 
 EDWARD O'BRIEN, Presbytery Boy at St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 
 MARY BOSTOCK, Sister of Respondent. 
 
 PATRICK FRANCIS CARDINAL MORAN, Archbishop of Sydney. 
 
 JAMES RUSSELL, Licensee of the Assembly Hotel, Phillip and 
 
 Hunter Streets, Sydney. 
 
 NEVILLE MONTAGU, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of N.S.W. 
 MARY BONNER, wife of James Bonner, Waverley. 
 WILLIAM CAMPHIN, Superintendent of Police. 
 ALICE SLEEMAN, Mrs. Coningham's Nurse Girl. 
 FREDERICK W. MARSHALL, Physician and Surgeon. 
 HARRY CONNACHIE, Ex-Branch Manager of the Australian Joint 
 
 Stock Bank. 
 
 HORACE NORTH BROOK, Teller in the Bank of Australasia. 
 ARTHUR LLOYD THOMAS, Official of the City Bank. 
 JOHN FRYER, Lithographic Artist and Designer. 
 
 Before beginning proceedings in the 'new trial his Honor, Mr. 
 Justice Owen, said that he would have the evidence taken down in 
 shorthand, a course to which each side agreed. The witnesses in 
 the Case were then ordered to remain outside the Court until called^
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL, 85 
 
 THE PETITIONER'S OPENING STATEMENT. 
 
 The Petitioner opened his case, reai the issues, put in the 
 certificate of marriage between himself, Arthur Coningham, and 
 Alice Stanford Bowling, at Bondi, in the Colony of New South 
 Wales, the matrimonial contract being solemnized according to the 
 rites of the Church of England. The Petitioner then asked that 
 the evidence in the Case should not be published, because if it were 
 to be published, what was the use of ordering the witnesses out of 
 Court ? The public could read all the evidence within an hour, and 
 know as well as if they had been in Court what was going on. The 
 Petitioner then made an appeal ad misericordiam to the Judge, 
 affirming that he had been threatened with all sorts of pains and 
 penalties by all sorts and conditions of miscreants ; and his Honor 
 essayed the apparently difficult task of setting Mr. Coningham's 
 perturbed mind at rest by promising him the protection of the Court 
 and the punishment of the offender or offenders unspecified. The 
 Petitioner was still uneasy, however. He did not know the names 
 of his forty or so turbulent correspondents; and Counsel Want 
 interjected that he seemed to have survived very well during the 
 three months that had elapsed since the hearing of the last case. 
 The Petitioner excitedly refused to be comforted. He further 
 stated that he did not conduct his case from choice, but from 
 necessity a statement that did not evoke any large measure of 
 sympathy from the objecting Senior Counsel for the Defence. 
 
 The Petitioner proceeded to make his statement, by preference 
 on oath, although the Judge pointed out to him that he was at 
 liberty first to address the Jury. Coningham continued with that 
 nervous energy and excitability of utterance so absolutely foreign to 
 the average chemist, and, for that matter, to the average cricketer 
 either. He said that on the 2yth January of last year he journeyed 
 from Sydney to Brisbane ; and, while in the latter city, received 
 several letters from his wife. He wrote, asking her to join him, but 
 she refused to do so. Then, in the process of the suns, he returned 
 to Sydney and relieved " Burrilda," or rather (in his own -less 
 precise language) went to reside at Fairfield. His wife and children 
 were living there ; but his wife treated him with strangeness, and he 
 knew not what he had done that she should behave so frigidly. He 
 stated that this hurt him keenly and he taxed her with coldness, 
 asking her for an explanation. She replied that she had been 
 worried. Then Mrs. Coningham conveniently went to Sydney, and 
 the Petitioner, having his suspicions aroused, as he affirms, 
 proceeded to ransack her boxes. After carefully searching, he 
 found ^ (apparently what he expected to find, and knew in what 
 explicitly-planned and draughted place to look for) two harps and a 
 photograph inscribed " D.F.O'H, 2/10/98 " in the corner. On her 
 return, a small scene took place a scene which it is unnecessary to 
 detail (because it has, in the account of the First Trial, already 
 been described), and the matter rested there for the night. Next
 
 86 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 morning, Coningham again showed himself in the role of a bold, 
 determined man ; but his persistence at arriving at the truth was 
 apparently put to rest, with the greatest ease, by the rather 
 commonplace assurance by the Respondent that she would tell him 
 if he were to ask her " to-night !" Well, he asked her " to-night "; 
 but the lady was still obdurate. He showed her the really wonder- 
 fully-discovered photograph, with the initials and the date in the 
 corner, using a leading question. The lady of snow then began to 
 thaw and Mr. Want interposed an objection. 
 
 The Judge allowed the objection, and told the Jury that this 
 evidence was in no way admissible against the Co-respondent. It 
 was merely a conversation between the husband and the wife when 
 the Co-respondent was not present. The Jury must remember this 
 point throughout the Case. There was no proof of anything 
 concerning Co-respondent, but concerning only between Petitioner 
 and Respondent. 
 
 THE RESPONDENT'S CONFESSION. 
 
 The Petitioner continued in the same strain, and led up to the 
 Respondent's confession, which document the Associate read. It 
 was dated from Fairfield, and bore date the i^th June, 1900. In 
 this precious concoction Mrs. Coningham stated that her first act of 
 impropriety with the Co-respondent took place on the 3rd July, 
 1898 (the first Sunday in the month), in the Cardinal's Hall of St. 
 Mary's Cathedral. Similar other occasions were alleged in the 
 Hall, the Presbytery, and the Office of the same edifice. She 
 proceeded to state that the child Vincent had always been treated 
 with a difference by Coningham, as contrasted with his treatment of 
 her other children. She charged the Co-respondent with this child's 
 paternity, and stated that this alleged fact accounted for the second 
 name of the infant being " Francis," which was the second name 
 also of Dr. O'Haran. This was the reason the Doctor did not 
 baptise him. Two people knew of her illicit visits, and suspected 
 the truth. Then came this sentence, " During our seven years of 
 married life I have never been unfaithful with any before or since, 
 only with Dr. O'Haran." Those who have watched the Respond- 
 ent's Sphinx-like demeanour in Court cannot feel but amused on 
 reading this simulated emotional passage : " Do, Conny, let me 
 know the end soon. This torture is too intense to last long. But 
 do believe me, I will never wrong you again." The confession 
 contained other matter having little relevance to the Case, and is 
 signed, " Your miserable wife, Alice Coningham." Miserable wife ! 
 indeed ; but in a highly different 'sense from that intended to be 
 conveyed by the cold-blooded blackmailer who penned the words. 
 
 The Petitioner resumed his wretched story; but it is not 
 necessary to c ollow the full text of his infamous allegations. It is 
 sufficient if dates and local details only are given, as these affect the 
 veracity of the Respondent herself. Coningham stated that he had
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 87 
 
 received the Respondent's confession in Sydney. During the verbal 
 confession she had previously made to him she fixed the night of 
 the 3rd July, 1898, as one upon which she had an appointment with 
 her sister to go to the Cathedral to see the procession on the first 
 Sunday in the month. She missed her sister, and went in alone. 
 She saw the Co-respondent, who tried to find a seat for her, but 
 failed to do so. Being too ill to stand, she asserted that the Doctor 
 led her through the Sacristy, out of the side door, down a flight of 
 steps, down the footpath by an asphalt right-of-way between the 
 Cardinal's Hall and the Cathedral. She, thinking it was an outlet 
 to the street, followed. The Doctor then, it is alleged, took a key 
 from his pocket and opened a door, saying, " Here, in the Hall." 
 She stepped in, thinking she was stepping into the street. He 
 stepped in after her and shut the door. Then followed the 
 Petitioner's account of the Respondent's verbal account of an act of 
 impropriety. These clever people had really remarkable memories ! 
 To continue : She stated to the Petitioner that a few days afterwards 
 she was taken very ill, and was laid up for eight or ten weeks. 
 When she was well, she went to the Cathedral again a few days 
 before the 2nd October and saw the Co-respondent. She states 
 that no act of impropriety took place on this occasion ; although the 
 Doctor made an appointment with her for the following Monday 
 he said he would give her a photograph. At all events, she stated 
 that she went to St. Mary's, accompanied the Co-respondent to the 
 Hall, and there behaved with impropriety. Afterwards the Doctor 
 returned to his duties, and she viewed the procession from the door. 
 This state of things, the Petitioner declared that the Respondent 
 declared, continued until December, 1899. In April or May, 1900, 
 :she told the Doctor of her condition, at least, so stated the Petitioner 
 that she stated to him. The boy, Vincent Francis, was the child of 
 this clandestine intrigue. The Petitioner then said, " I wrote to the 
 Co-respondent the following letter: Senior Counsel Want 
 objected to the letter going in. It was said by the late Chief Justice 
 that any man could at the last moment write letters to bolster up a 
 case. There was no answer to it, and so the letter was worthless. 
 Mr. Want then made a bold move : So far as he was concerned he 
 would try to show conspiracy between Petitioner and Co-respondent. 
 
 Coningham insisted that the letter referred to was not written 
 on the eve of the Case. He wrote the first letter in last May, and 
 the petition was lodged in September. But Mr. Want still objected 
 to such letters appealing in evidence. Any person could write 
 letters carefully prepared with the intention of impressing the Jury 
 later on. The moment the letters were received by the Co- 
 respondent they were handed to the Police. Counsel asked that the 
 letters be left until after the cross-examination was over. He (Mr. 
 Want) would endeavour to prove a conspiracy, and after that it 
 would be for the Court to admit the letters or otherwise. The 
 Judge considered that such would be the better course, and 
 concurred.
 
 83 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 THE PETITIONER UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
 
 Coningham, having his parcel-gilt and revarnished tale deli- 
 vered, was put under cross-examination by Mr. Want, who began 
 work by again declaring that it was his intention to prove that the 
 Petitioner was engaged in the " make-up " of his case right down to 
 the first day of the trial. To categorical questions the Petitioner 
 committed himself, in answers, by swearing that he was not helping 
 Respondent, nor was Respondent helping him, all through the former 
 trial ; that he never saw her, never sent her messages, never met her 
 in a house, and, in fact, during the trial, had seen her nowhere except 
 in Court, although he had met her since the first trial ; that he (Peti- 
 tioner) had not been working with the Respondent, nor did he get 
 hints from her ; and that he had no idea of her coming to Court to 
 " strike " the Jury. In further cross-examination, the Petitioner 
 stated he was living at Fairfield on the 23rd May, when he received 
 a communication from his wife, in a house occupied by a man whose 
 own wife had obtained a divorce on the ground of her husband's 
 adultery with her daughter. This man afterwards married the 
 daughter, but the Petitioner did not know of it until after he came 
 back from Queensland. He (Coningham) had heard only about the 
 divorce and betrayal of the daughter ; but did not know that they 
 were facts. Mr. Want then obtained from the Petitioner an admis- 
 sion that after receiving his wife's confession he continued to share 
 the same room with her. There were other rooms in the house, but 
 he could not afford to pay for one. This happy menage remained 
 undisturbed for three or four weeks. When Petitioner left Fairfield 
 he went to a furnished house at Stanmore, in which there were about 
 six rooms. He had with him his wife and three children ; but at 
 Stanmore he did not occupy the same bedroom as that occupied by 
 his wife. Always folding his nightly tent, Coningham next conveyed 
 his caravan to a large boarding-house in Alberto Terrace, kept by 
 a Mrs. Abraham. Here, the Petitioner surmised, he arrived at the 
 end of August, or the first week in September ; and from this Tadmor 
 in the wilderness served, per Solicitor E. R. Abigail, his wife with 
 the petition, although he had been sharing, according to his im- 
 memorial custom, her bedroom " in order to save expense," of 
 course. His wife and children next drifted onwards, in their circum- 
 exploration of the metropolitan area, to the house of a Mrs. Bray, in 
 Park Road, while the restless-footed cricketer fielded as far as 
 Jesmond Place ; nevertheless, on three or four occasions he went to 
 see the broken-hearted Respondent, and, as was his wont, shared her 
 bedroom when he did so. However, there was nothing shabby in 
 the transaction. Coningham parted with a cheque for the sum of 
 2. 55., and received los. in change. True, the cheque was after- 
 wards presented and dishonoured, but a man concocting a conspiracy 
 can hardly be expected to think of everything. This interesting 
 cross-examination elicited the somewhat astounding fact that the 
 Petitioner and his wife had been living together from May up to the 
 time of serving the petition in September though the verbal con-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 89. 
 
 fession of Respondent's guilt was made in the fourth week of the 
 former month a period of four months. 
 
 Mr. Want, at this stage of the cross-examination of the Peti- 
 tioner, got on another tack. He asked Coningham whether he had 
 not travelled backwards and forwards to and from Brisbane, spend- 
 ing money. Did he not get some money from Brisbane ? The Peti- 
 tioner queried how Mr. Want could know that. He denied getting 
 money by the " Burwah," but admitted getting a letter with a pound 
 in it from Ipswich (Q.). Mr. Want caustically asked if he had ever 
 paid the old lady (Mrs. Bray, of Park Road) the half-sovereign he 
 owed her, and Coningham denied the soft impeachment. The Peti- 
 tioner, in answer to Mr. Want, said that he could not be certain how 
 long the Respondent had remained at Mrs. Bray's ; but he thought 
 that it was about three weeks or a month it might have been more. 
 After leaving Mrs. Bray's, she went to stay at Mrs. Connachie's,. 
 Gurner-street, Paddington about a mile and a quarter from Jesmond 
 Place. At the time of the present cross-examination (nth March, 
 1901), Coningham stated that he lived in the Glenmore Road three- 
 quarters of a mile distant. Petitioner denied writing letters to his 
 wife, although he sent money to her for the children, such moneys 
 being addressed to Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 THOSE LETTERS ! 
 
 Then came the startling production of a letter by Mr. Want. It 
 considerably disconcerted the Petitioner. The Senior Counsel asked 
 him to identify the handwriting. Coningham asked to be permitted 
 to examine the document ; but Counsel refused to allow him to handle 
 it more than was necessary to permit of the caligraphy being iden- 
 tified. The Petitioner declared that he had the best of reasons for 
 wishing to see the letter he could not say whose was the hand- 
 writing unless he was allowed to see it. The Judge, however, con- 
 sidered that Mr. Want was perfectly right in asking the Petitioner 
 if it were, or if it were not, his hand-writing. Coningham then ad- 
 mitted that it looked like his. Counsel next submitted other letters, 
 which were marked for identification, and the Petitioner again ad- 
 mitted that the hand-writing in them looked like his. Coningham \vas 
 asked if he were not in communication with his wife after he left 
 Bray's, and during the trial, by sending letters enclosed in papers- 
 containing what he said looked like his hand-writing ; but this Peti- 
 tioner promptly denied. At what date did his wife go to Con- 
 nachie's ? This the Petitioner could not tell, but surmised it was 
 the yth October, and admitted that she was staying at Connachie's- 
 while the last trial was on. He denied, however, that she communi- 
 cated with him. 
 
 At this point the Petitioner said he remembered at the (first); 
 trial a plan of St. Mary's Cathedral having been put in. He did not 
 remember going into Court one morning and making a particular 
 request that his wife should be allowed to havr the plan, but he-
 
 -go THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 asked that she should be allowed to see it. He remembered his wife 
 having stated in evidence something about half-a-dozen steps down- 
 wards. Something was said about seventeen steps, but the Peti- 
 tioner did not know which steps were referred to. He had called 
 one woman to give evidence at the trial, but she was not allowed to 
 do so, because the Petitioner had been unable to find her in order to 
 serve the subpo3na. He remembered that the Judge told him and 
 the Respondent that they must have no communication one with 
 another. 
 
 At this point Mr. Want tendered another paper to the Peti- 
 tioner, and asked him to identify the handwriting, Said Coning- 
 ham, " Turn the pages over, and let me have a look." Mr. Want 
 pressed his former question, and the Petitioner said, rather weakly, 
 " It looks like my wife's." He then requested permission to examine 
 the letters, and his Honor intervened with a remark that the Counsel 
 was right to turn the leaves down if he desired so to do. Coning- 
 ham persisted that he had very strong reasons for seeing the docu- 
 ments in question, and alleged forgery. From this out it was war 
 to the knife, one side wielding, through Mr. Want's powerful arm, 
 the bludgeon of " Conspiracy," and the other, the ugly, but not so 
 effective, battle-axe of " Forgery." But when his Honor summed 
 up at the close of the trial, he guided the attention of the Jury back 
 to the true issues of the Case, and on the evidence as it affected such 
 issues did the Jury give their verdict. Coningham's confidence, not 
 to say cocksureness, began visibly to melt from this moment. He 
 perceived clearly that Counsel must possess very strong cards in- 
 deed, and his temperamental energy began to deteriorate into trepi- 
 dant nervousness. The Case had entered on a new phase ! From 
 this moment it practically ceased to bear the character of a Petition 
 for a Divorce, and was, for the remainder of the hearing, regarded 
 by the community at large as being essentially a case of conspiracy, 
 under which accusation the Coninghams were on their trial, if not 
 before Judge and Jury, at least before the Bar of Public Opinion. 
 
 Taking up the thread of the cross-examination, Mr. Want gave 
 the Petitioner some hand-writing, which the latter said resembled his 
 wife's ; but he could not swear to some other hand-writing. Counsel 
 pressed Coningham to swear that it was not his wife's hand-writing, 
 but the wily cricketer refused the ball. " Now," said the Senior 
 Counsel, " are not all these exhibits in your hand-writing ?" The 
 Petitioner reluctantly admitted that they looked " all right." Mr. 
 Want, referring to the former hearing, said that while the trial was 
 on he had asked the Petitioner whether the questions had not arisx n 
 about the steps, and Mrs. Bostock, and whether he (Coningham) had 
 not made an application for the plan. Had the Petitioner received 
 this from his wife : 
 
 I want money ; do not forget the hall away, so as they will subpoena her, 
 
 plan in your summing up, Could you and then you cross-question her, and 
 
 not let someone tell Slattery's clerk get it all ? 
 .that my sister would only give me
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. QF 
 
 Coningham denied that he had received this, and Mr. Want 
 continued reading the contents of the document : 
 
 Mind, ask me what message Lang- church. You, in your summing up, 
 
 ton brought me when I waited for the must make that clear. I have been in 
 
 doctor, while he was at the funeral, the fernery, and could not get by it. 
 
 and ask what conversation I had with Find out that fellow he said he drove 
 
 Mrs. Abrahams; also about the baby to the Town Hall with. I had the harp 
 
 being baptised. I thought you would given to me on that night. He was^ 
 
 never be done your cross-questions. with me when the clock struck half- 
 
 You did your case no good, you mad past 7 and a quarter to 8. If I am put 
 
 thing. Why did you not ask me to be in the box again let me have a go at 
 
 allowed to see the plan to-night. I Mrs. Abrahams, Miss Sutherland, and 
 
 cannot understand the seventeen steps, the St. Patrick's Concert, 1899. lean. 
 
 Ask to have it shown me to-morrow. tell where the harp came from Doctor, 
 
 Now you hjard my evidence read to- as he said. Why did you not tell his 
 
 night, well that is the truth. It is no Honor you had only just found Mrs. 
 
 good Want trying to show the Jury that Bostock ? Serve you right for not serv- 
 
 I did say what Langton says. I said ing her when I told you. You know 
 
 my word before his. I never spoke she was the only one who could corro- 
 
 about the w ill by the fern-house ; only borate what I said truthfully, 
 the path between the hall and the 
 
 Again Coningham denied receipt of such an epistle, and was 
 then asked to write the name of " Mrs. Arnold " three times, and he 
 did so. 
 
 The Petitioner, in swearing that he had never received the fore- 
 going letter, laid great stress on the fact that there was no date to 
 the document, and that, therefore, he stood on clover ; but Counsel 
 reassured him, in an uncomfortable manner, that he stood on cold, 
 hard, road-metal, as he would undoubtedly find in the process of the 
 suns. The Petitioner fidgetted uneasily, and gathered pent-house 
 brows in an ominous frown, as he prophesied ultimate confusion to- 
 Mr. Want ' ; when his case came on." 
 
 In answer to a question from the Judge, Mr. Want replied that 
 the document from which he was reading was a letter marked " C " 
 for purposes of identification. Then, at the request of Counsel, the 
 Petitioner three times wrote the words " Mrs. Arnold," with pen and 
 ink, on a piece of paper. These essays at caligraphy in Court sub- 
 sequently played an important part in the evidence touching hand- 
 writing, as the Case developed. 
 
 Mr, Want asked Petitioner if the latter did not, after the first 
 Case was over, send his wife up to Miller's, at Fairfield ; but the 
 Petitioner " did not know." Then did he make any arrangements 
 for her to go to Miller's ? No ! Did he not write to anyone up there 
 about her going ? Not about her ! Did she go up ? Yes ! In 
 answer to other questions, Petitioner admitted that he visited his 
 wife while she was staying at Fairfield, on " Sunday fortnight or 
 Sunday week "; but thought it was the former. He did not know 
 what name his wife went under ; and though he saw her, yet he did 
 not speak to her. His trip to Fairfield was made in company with 
 a Mr. James Exton (the " Dear Jim " of some of the epistolary
 
 <)2 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 correspondence) with whom " Conny" was then living. He had 
 been to Fairfield eight or ten times ; but his wife stayed there only 
 .a week. He had seen her only on Sunday fortnight. 
 
 Counsel produced a post-card, and, showing it to Coningham, 
 asked in whose hand it had been written. The Petitioner said that 
 it looked like his. Counsel produced another post-card, and the 
 evidence was repeated " They both look very much like mine.'" 
 Asked if he had sent a registered letter addressed to Miller's, 
 Petitioner said " No !" He was next shown an envelope addressed 
 to Mrs. Arnold, at Miller's lodging-house, with a postal registration 
 note attached. He admitted that the hand-writing looked like his, 
 .but assured the Judge that he really could not swear to it. Said 
 Mr. Want, " It is a letter purporting to be sent by Mr. Exton to 
 Mrs. Arnold. Is it not your hand-writing ?" " It looks like it, but I 
 will not swear to it." The Petitioner did, however, swear that he 
 WHS ignorant of the fact that Mrs. Coningham was passing herself as 
 Mrs. Arnold while staying at Miller's ; although he admitted sitting 
 down to dinner at the same table with her on the occasion of his visit 
 to Fairfield. Notwithstanding that, he did not know the name by 
 which she went. 
 
 The Petitioner indignantly denied writing the following : 
 
 " Burwah not in till Sunday. Will stout. Glad you can stay another 
 
 send you some by Friday. Don't think week. Hope children all well. Caught 
 
 ,1 can before. You will be sure to have Miss F y in a trap, and the man 
 
 it by Friday's mail. Will register it. spoilt it. Will try again soon. She 
 
 No need to see Mrs. O'H. until next must fall in again. I will then force 
 
 week. All will be well. Perhaps come her hand. Am very busy. Good-bye, 
 
 op on Sunday. Will bring oysters and Yours, Mabel." 
 
 The Petitioner was equally positive that he had never penned a 
 letter addressed : 
 
 "Mrs. V. Arnold, c/o W. Miller, it brings good luck, will give you three- 
 
 Burrilda, Wetherill Park, via Smith- quarters. Hope it does I'm working 
 
 field." night and day. If I bring more stout 
 
 The enclosure read as follows : and oysters, will you shout when I see 
 
 " Dear Mrs. Coningham. Enclosed you ? Love to all the children, Good- 
 
 iind 3. Burwah in on Sunday or bye. Ever yours, Mabel." 
 Monday. Hope you are all well, If 
 
 Mr. Want jeeringly remarked that he supposed the Petitioner 
 did not take up " oysters and stout !" This evoked an indignant 
 denial from " Conny," who further stated, in answer to Counsel, that 
 he remained at Miller's from 11.30 a.m. until about 5 p.m. He 
 supposed his wife had a bedroom there; though he "absolutely" 
 swore that he did not go into it. Besides Mrs. Coningham, there 
 were present, Mr. Miller, Mr. Exton, and Petitioner's children 
 Mabel and Vincent. He had no idea whatever as to the writer of 
 the notes referred to ; nor had he any idea as to the identity of the 
 person who sent the money (?). Coningham very positively swore 
 that- the letter-card bearing the word " Miller," which he admitted 
 having written, was not n the same style of hand- writing as that
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 93 
 
 upon the letter-card addressed to Mrs. Arnold about " oysters and 
 stout," and which the Petitioner said he did not write. The two 
 -disputed letter-cards were thereupon handed to the Jury, who care- 
 fully examined them and compared the hand-writing. 
 
 In resumption of the Petitioner's cross-examination by Mr. 
 Want, Coningham swore that the letter beginning, " enclosed you 
 will find ^"3," was not in his hand-writing ; nor was the writing on 
 the registered envelope his. He did not give Exton $ to send to 
 his wife, and he knew no one by the name of Mrs. Arnold. The 
 Petitioner was asked if Exton were in Court, and replied that he did 
 not know, the last time he saw him being about twenty minutes 
 before. 
 
 At Mr. Want's request, his Honor allowed the Petitioner to 
 write the following words : 
 
 Mrs. V. Arnold, c/o W. Miller, When I see you. Love to all the 
 
 Burrilda, Wetherill Park, via Smith- children. Good-bye. Ever yours, 
 field. Mabel. 
 
 If I bring you some more stout and 
 oysters, will you shout ? 
 
 Petitioner was next requested to write : 
 
 Burwah not in until Sunday. Will mail. I will register it. Perhaps come 
 
 send you some by Friday. Very busy. up on Sunday. Will bring up oysters 
 
 Good-bye. Yours --Mabel." and stout. 27/2/1901. James Exton, 
 
 Will be sure to have it by Friday's G. P.O., Sydney. 
 
 The Petitioner having written these words and sentences at 
 dictation, as requested, the papers were marked for identification. 
 
 During this labour of love, Mr. Want complained of the 
 exaggerated slowness of the Petitioner's writing-speed. Coningham 
 angrily told Counsel not to make insinuations, and invited him to 
 come up and see if he could do it more quickly. Mr. Want retorted 
 that the Petitioner could come down if he preferred it. Oh, dear, 
 no ! The wily " Conny" felt safe where he was. Moreover, it gave 
 him an excuse for the exaggerated slowness aforesaid. 
 
 The evasive quality of Coningham's mind was well brought out 
 in the next few questions. He did not know that Captain Simpson 
 was the skipper of the " Burwah." When pressed, he admitted that 
 he did know a Captain Simpson. Oh, yes ; he was the captain of 
 the " Mareeba." Never to his knowledge was he captain of the 
 " Burwah." Cricketer Coningham was a past-master of the art of 
 mental reservation. 
 
 SILLY SYMPATHY: AN INTERLUDE. 
 
 In Mr. Want's cross-examination of the Petitioner, it was made 
 to appear that J. T. Simpson was the captain of the s.s. " Mareeba," 
 and the Petitioner knew him. Mr. Simpson was, however, not the 
 captain, but the chief officer, of the " Mareeba "; he also met Mr. 
 Coningham only on one occasion.
 
 94 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 " Captain " Simpson was one of the silly and sympathetic 
 persons who engaged themselves to collect funds for the " Relief of 
 Coningham. One entry alone appears in the " Captain's " book - 
 
 has full authority to collect and receive 
 Subscriptions to provide funds for the 
 petitioner (ARTHUR CONINGHAM) in 
 the ensuing J)ivorce Suit of 
 
 Coningham v. Coningrftanj (O'Jfaran ' 
 Co-respondent). 
 
 c/o RUSSELLT JONES & BARKER. 
 SOLICITORS, 
 
 PITT STEEET, SYDNEY. 
 
 Dated February 1st, 1901. 
 
 r.-M. S93TH, ritlNT., VICTORIA **C*04 SVOMV
 
 Hon J. H WANT, K.C.. M L C. 
 
 (I'lioto. by Faik's Studios, 496 George St.) 
 
 Aid. A. G. RALSTON, 
 
 BARRISTER-AT-LAW 
 (Photo, by Falk.) 
 
 Hon. T. M. SLATTERY, M L.C. 
 
 (Photo, by J. Hubert Newnmr.)
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 95 
 
 but mirabile dictu, it is the Captain's own ! The number of Mr. 
 Simpson's book was 263. Hum ! There were many called, but few 
 were chosen. How much did Coningham receive that saw never the 
 corrective eye of accountant secretary ? Coningham's appeal ad 
 miser icordtam for coin was signed by himself "on behalf of the 
 Committee " humorous dog, Coningham ! 
 
 /< 
 
 ^-e^t? / 
 A '/ 
 
 fiC^~ 4 ^^^^ ^_^ ^/>S 
 c^*^. , v j^ 
 
 [Continued on p. 96.]
 
 9 6 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 FROM
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 97 
 
 But " Conny" had more than one misguided sympathiser. A 
 Mr. John Moore, of Fairhill, Branxton, sent a P.O. order for 5, 
 and some words of sweetness. Mr. William Affleck, M.L.A. for 
 Yass, wrote a note to Coningham enclosing a cheque for i to assist 
 in procuring " Council.'' The Rev. W. M. Dill-Macky went further. 
 1 [ wrote to Major Gilchrist, endeavouring to get that gentleman as 
 Secretary to the Coningham Relief Fund. He also issued a type- 
 
 Stots Cburrb |flanst. 
 
 9 jjRimtson Sttttl, 
 
 1801. 
 
 ^(L~ 

 
 98 
 
 THE COMNGHAM CASE.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 99 
 
 written, begging circular, besides preparing a " struck " Jury List. 
 Mr. Frederick D. Badgery, of Lake Bathurst, also sympathised, to 
 the extent of i is. ; and wrote words of sweetness. No doubt 
 these gentlemen subsequently regretted their exuberant impulsiveness. 
 By the way, Major Gilchrist was proof against Dill-Macky's 
 blandishments. He refused to become Secretary for the Coningham 
 Relief Fund. 
 
 ^7 /X_^r /C<!C^_ /^s^i-/^j 
 
 "-- " -' {<>^/<^L_ t^fe^y 
 
 'fol^. 
 
 -3
 
 100 THE COMNGHAM CASE. 
 
 7 J &fyis<si**4faA4+^ 
 
 (fiff. 
 
 .Scots Nrtb |Flansf, 
 jf am USD n 
 
 Sydney, Maroh 4, 
 
 J90 
 
 Dear Sir 
 
 RE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 The Committee earnestly request that you will kindly 
 forward, addressed to me all subscript Tons collected to 
 date, as morrey is urgently needed for the immediate require- 
 ments of the case. 
 
 W. M. DILL MACKY, 
 
 Chairman 
 [Dill-Macky's Appeal on Behalf of Coningham.]
 
 THE SECOND TRIAI . 
 
 101 
 
 .= 2 r "5 
 
 E f 
 
 o$ 
 
 b 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 ? 
 
 -- 
 
 c 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 E. 
 
 ~r 
 
 
 1 
 
 e 
 
 c 
 
 
 . 
 
 \ 
 
 1 
 -c 
 
 5 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 S 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 E 
 
 2 
 
 a 
 = 
 
 
 
 
 j lieg to drw 
 
 H 
 f 
 
 -= 
 
 1 
 
 -= 
 j 
 ^ 
 
 "s 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 ^ 
 .i 
 
 ^: 
 J 
 
 f 
 
 
 '^ 
 | 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 | 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
 < 
 
 7 
 
 
 j 
 
 fe 
 
 3 
 
 
 DSAR 8m. 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 c 
 
 fictorily afw 
 
 1 
 
 -5 
 I 
 
 1 
 < 
 
 -E 2 
 
 I 1 3 
 
 ill 
 
 <3 -So 
 
 1 
 
 "jiiiff] 
 
 is 
 
 5-s 
 
 3 
 
 1! 
 ii 
 
 11 
 
 !*11ifi3itl**'5i 
 
 ^^iHipfPili ,. 
 
 . HH^il!*! 1 ! ij 
 
 2 a, ^ = -c - * a >> 
 
 llf'iflf*?! lillilil 
 
 "'t'=S - s^ii.3f35"9l|^2 
 
 |||jl||J|l|I||i|j| 
 
 I I I I S 83 I S E S 
 
 .11 
 
 R6 I 
 
 t 
 
 I f
 
 102 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 But everybody was not stupidly sympathetic, as the following 
 humorous "wire" will show. 
 
 ISSUED FORM. 
 
 Vast 
 
 "yyyii 
 
 sUyHnMpv 
 
 OLONIAL AND INTER^LONIAL^ 
 
 Ho. 
 
 f.msunP-T>rfit" 
 
 A 
 
 TELEGRAM from 
 & Addressed tW* 
 
 Station. 
 
 tfo'ti are requested to give no fee tr grftntty ts 1nf Messenger: Those enter 
 lime of delivery and sign Ticket Book.) 
 
 [OVER' 1 
 
 RESUMPTION OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
 
 Reverting to Mr. Want's cross-examination of Coningham, the 
 Petititioner repeated his denial that the envelope of the registered 
 letter and the pencilled note were in his hand-writing. He did not 
 know who " Mabel " was. His daughter Mabel was at Fairfield, 
 but she was a child of only four years of age. He admitted that he 
 had said at the former hearing of the Case that the Respondent's 
 confession of the i3th June was in her own hand-writing, and that it 
 was posted to him in Sydney he had it from the Post Office. He 
 had not been to Fairfield from the 23rd May until the I4th June
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. IO3 
 
 he went up about a week before the i4th June. Coningham did not 
 inform his wife that he intended to return to Sydney, and there might 
 have been a quarrel before his departure. 
 
 Counsel then asked the Petitioner if he remembered being asked 
 by him (Mr. Want) if he had in his possession a document worded 
 differently from that produced. Coningham denied having such a 
 differently worded document. Would he swear there was not, in his 
 wife's hand-writing, an alleged confession, dated differently from the 
 alleged confession of the i3th June"? Yes; it was absolutely 
 false ! Then would he give an " open order " to get the document 
 from anyone who had it ? Petitioner vehemently denied that there 
 was such a confession in existence. He was again pressed to give 
 an " open order " to obtain it ; and replied, " Go and get it yourself !" 
 His Honor here intervened to the effect that the Petitioner must 
 answer with a simple " yes " or " no." Coningham, in pathetic 
 accents, said, " Your Honor, I don't know the trap that is being laid 
 for me !" Counsel, with reiterated persistence, asked the Petitioner 
 to give him an " open order," telling any person who held such a 
 differently-worded confession to give it up to him (Mr. Want). 
 Coningham again asseverated that there was no other confession 
 than that of the i3th June in existence. Mr. Want said, " Supposing 
 the document is a forgery ?" Petitioner, angrily, " Get it 
 where you got the other stuff. I say there is no other confession. 
 You have got quite enough. / cannot give you an order for what is 
 not in existence. If there is a second confession, get it. You are 
 welcome to it !" His Honor here told Petitioner to say whether he 
 would give an order or not. "Then," said Coningham " I will give 
 no order\" 
 
 The Petitioner did not know that he had ever told anyone any- 
 thing which fixed the 2nd October as the day on which his wife had 
 been betrayed. He denied that he had ever set out in his own 
 handwriting a confession purporting to be signed " Alice." Asked 
 if he had ever set out in any document the words " Wife's full 
 confession," and then left a blank, and put at the bottom " Alice," 
 Coningham asked his Honor whether he could have the document put 
 in if he answered that question. The Judge told him to answer the 
 question, and the matter of producing the document could be dealt 
 with afterwards. The Petitioner said that this related to one of 
 the threatening letters a very bad one, he admitted that he had 
 sent to Dr. O'Haran, and related to a verbal confession. Mr. 
 Want reverted to the original bone of contention, and again asked 
 if the Petitioner would give him an order to get the document in 
 question. Coningham replied that Mr. Want would get it later on, 
 when his Honor should make the Co-respondent produce his 
 (Coningham's) letters, and said, with great vehemence, " I will not 
 give you an order !" 
 
 The Senior Counsel then tried back on another little tack. Did 
 the Petitioner remember him (Mr. \Vant) asking if, at the last trial,
 
 IO4 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 there had not been an erasure made in the alleged confession, and that 
 he (Coningham) had denied it ? In reply, the Petitioner stated that 
 he swore that he received the confession, and that no alteration had 
 been made in it after he received it. He also said that he did not 
 say, when asked if he would like an expert to examine the letter, 
 that he did not want any such course pursued. Counsel then harded 
 the document to the Jury to see that a date had been altered to the 
 3rd July, and that a different kind of ink from that with which the 
 letter had been written was used in making the alteration. Petitioner 
 admitted that he remembered being asked by Mr. Want if " July 3 " 
 had not been altered in some fashion; but he absolutely swore that 
 such an alteration had not been made he said that he could not do 
 otherwise. He did not, however, remember being asked by Mr. 
 Want, about what the Counsel called the " other confession " (of 
 24th May), whether in that document Mrs. Coningham had not said 
 that she would swear that she had never acted improperly with any 
 man but the Co-respondent ; but he admitted that Mr. Want asked 
 him whether he did not know that a midwife had come down from 
 Brisbane, where she had confined Mrs. Coningham (then Alice 
 Stanford Dowling) of an illegitimate child." " Then," said Mr. 
 Want, " I asked you was it in consequence of your finding out that 
 your wife had had an illegitimate child that she changed her con- 
 fession ?" The Petitioner did not remember being asked the 
 question ; but he would not swear that in the first confession he got 
 she set out on it that she had never had anything to do with any 
 man except the Doctor and Coningham himself. She had never 
 written that to him. In answer to a question as to whether the 
 confession of the i3th June was obtained to take the place of the 
 other, in consequence of the midwife coming down from Brisbane, 
 Coningham declared there was no other confession but that of the 
 1 3th June. The Petitioner further said, in answer to a question, 
 that he did not know that the midwife had come down to Sydney. 
 Mr. Want drew irom Coningham the admission that the Respondent 
 had never told him of the alleged paternity of the child, Vincent 
 " Francis," until che i3th June. She had :iot written or told him 
 anything of the kind on the 24th May. With advantage, a portion 
 of the reported evidence may here be quoted : 
 
 Mr. Want handed the Petitioner a Is it your writing? Yes, it is one cl 
 
 letter, which he read, and stated that the letters I wrote. 
 
 it was in his hand-writing. Did you ever say that you fixed the 
 
 I asked you if you knew your wife night of seduction at October 2, 1898 'f 
 
 was seduced by Dr. O'Haran oa Apparently I did. 
 
 October 2. Whose writing is that i Did you, or did you not, on May 24 ? 
 
 Mine. That is my writing. 
 
 Read that part. Read it to your- In May ? No, never in May. 
 
 se lf? Your Honor, can I get this into In August, then: I wrote that in 
 
 evidence ? August. 
 
 Mr. Want: Is that your writing ? Then, when you wrote that you had 
 
 Yes got the confession of June 13 ? Yes. 
 
 Is the whole of it yours ? I can't And you wrote that the seduction 
 
 say. You may have your thumb on took place on October 2 ? Yes, a 
 
 some part. seduction.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 105 
 
 What, a seduction "* Yes. 
 
 At this stage the witness was handed 
 the confession, and a magnifying glass. 
 
 Mr. Want : Now, what do you say 
 to this letter ? It is just as I received 
 it? 
 
 Do you not see that the " nd" has 
 been altered to " rd " in the date? 
 No, I do not see any alteration. 
 
 Don't you see the black ink on the 
 light ink ? No, I can't tell. 
 
 Don't you see there has been an 
 erasure there ? No, I don't see. It is 
 just as I received it. It won't alter it, 
 however we look at it. The paper 
 looks thinner there, but I could not 
 tell that there had been an erasure. 
 
 You told us you had set down 
 October 2 as the date of the seduction ? 
 Apparently I did. 
 
 That was in August last year ?- I 
 think so. 
 
 And at that time you had actually 
 got, if it was in existence, the con- 
 fession of June 13, fixing July 3 as the 
 date ? I do not quite follow you. 
 
 The confession set out that the 
 seduction took place on July 3 ? Yes. 
 
 And notwithstanding that you wrote 
 and fixed the date as October 2 ? 
 Apparently I did. 
 
 Did you not swear it at the last trial ? 
 No. 
 
 Did you not swear it this morning ? 
 Yes; I did. 
 
 You swore this morning that you 
 had never fixed July 3 as the date of 
 the seduction ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember asking that the 
 Respondent should see the plan of the 
 Cathedral ? Yes. 
 
 And asking for her to be allowed to 
 take it out of Court ? I asked no such- 
 thing. You asked that it shouldn't be 
 taken out. I asked nothing. 
 
 Did you not get a letter from your 
 wife during the last trial ? No. 
 
 Asking to be put into the box again, 
 and to be allowed " to have a go" at 
 Mrs. Abraham ? - No. 
 
 And saying that you must make- 
 certain things clear in your summing 
 up ? No. 
 
 Did she go back in the box ? Yes. 
 
 And did she " have a go " at Mr?. 
 Abraham? She did when I put the 
 questions to her. 
 
 Now, look at this ; will you swear 
 that is not your wife's writing all four 
 pages ? No. 
 
 Don't you know it is ? No ; I do- 
 not. 
 
 Now look at these four large photo- 
 graphs photos, of the four pages of 
 the letter. Don't you recognise the 
 writing ? 1 swear I never received any 
 such letter as this. I believe it's a 
 forgery. In fact, I have information 
 to show that it is a forgery. I'll prove, 
 before the trial is over, that it is. 
 
 Mr. Want appealed to his If onor to 
 make the Petitioner confine his utter- 
 ances to answers of questions put to 
 him. 
 
 His Honor (to witness) : You are 
 asked if that is your wife's hand- 
 writing. I could almost swear, your 
 Honor, that it is not. 
 
 Reburton Seymour Eyre Powell (representing the Postmaster- 
 General), produced an original telegram, dated i8th February, 1901 r 
 from " J. Exton " to " W. Miller, Smithfield," also a receipt for a 
 registered letter sent to " Mrs. V. Arnold, Wetherill Park, via 
 Smithfield." The Petitioner wished to cross-examine the witness, 
 but his Honor said that this could not be done, as he merely came 
 into Court and produced documents. 
 
 Mr. Want, in cross-examination, elicited the following statement 
 from the evasive " Conny " : " With reference to two envelopes 
 marked for identification, addressed to " F. Miller," and " W. Miller, 
 ' Burrilda,' Wetherill Park, via Smithfield," which Petitioner had 
 admitted to be in his hand-writing, he now professed dubiety. He 
 denied the hand-writing of the telegram produced by the postal 
 official, and of the receipt-butt of the registered letter. He did not 
 remember sending the telegram, although he acknowledged that the 
 band- writing on it was very much like his own. The receipt-bull
 
 io6 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 COLONIAL AND INTERCOLONIAL LINES. 
 
 f forwarded subject to the Printed Conditionrof the- Departm?xi : .J 
 
 10 
 
 25 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 Date , 
 
 Time..:.. _.../> . 
 
 ,. (Signed, 
 
 . m. Address 
 
 [The Disputed Telegram. ]
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 107 
 
 was not in his hand-writing. The disputed telegram, which pur- 
 ported to be sent by J. Exton, ran thus: " Fred, meet me Fairfield 
 Station, Tuesday morning ; urgent, cannot wait." (Mr. Want 
 handed the telegram signed J. Exton to the Jury for comparison with 
 the two envelopes Coningham had written himself, with the remark, 
 " You can see it the hand-writing is the same as the telegram sent 
 in the name of Exton.") Petitioner swore he did not send the regis- 
 tered letter with 3 enclosed in the name of Exton. He had evi- 
 dently written to Miller, Petitioner admitted, as " Dear Fred." He 
 had met Miller at Fairfield Station on a Sunday. He denied going 
 to Fairfield on Monday, the i8th February (the day the telegram was- 
 sent at half-past 3). On that date Coningham said he was at an 
 office in Sydney, and he did not meet the person referred to on the 
 I gth, because he was then at the residence of Dill-Macky. In answer 
 to a question put by Mr. Want, asking him if he had written to 
 Miller to meet him at another station, adding, " You know why," 
 Petitioner replied that he might have done so. When he went up 
 to Fairfield he treated his wife as a stranger he did not speak to 
 her. At the dinner-table he did not sit next to her ; he took no notice 
 of her ; he sat next to his " little chap"; he did not know she was 
 sitting at the table when he went in to dinner. Most emphatically 
 he did not go down to the orchard and pick grapes with her. He 
 did not know that Mrs. Coningham's luggage went up to Fairfield 
 marked " Mrs. Arnold." (Coningham knew this very well, as he 
 proved by giving a reason for it in his address to the Jury at the end 
 of the trial). 
 
 At the request of Mr. Want, the registered letter which had been 
 produced by the postal official, and the receipt-butt, were marked for 
 identification. 
 
 Petitioner stated that he did not, most certainly, send his wife a 
 type-written statement of what he was going to say to the Jury at 
 the former trial, nor of how he was going to conduct the Case, and 
 asking her to correct any of the (alleged) facts. He did not get back 
 from her a document correcting all the little details in his state- 
 ment : 
 
 Not to this effect, " Mabel born May Will you, Mr. Coningham, give me 
 
 9 ?" No. an open order to get a document like 
 
 Instead of May 19 you mentioned ? that if it is in existence, in your wife's 
 
 No. hand-writing ? Your Honor, I'll give 
 
 Also " Dr. O'Haran sent two tickets the Co-respondent's Counsel no order 
 
 for Miss S to bring me to the first for anything, 
 
 concert in 1897, in the Town Hall, and His Honor: That is straight, 
 
 not the Opera House ?" No. Mr. Want : You won't give me an 
 
 Also, ' ' I went to O'Haran a few days order ? No ; I'll give you no order for 
 
 before October 2, and would not con- what doesn't exist, 
 
 sent to anything ?" I know nothing of We'll see whether it exists directly 
 
 any type-written document, and know Did you not get a communication from 
 
 nothing about what you say. I had no your wife, in answer to such a statement 
 
 comiintniciition u<ith Mrs. Coningham, or prepared by you, referring to a sugges- 
 
 slic n'ith me, before tlu' tn'al, or after the tion that she should say she left the 
 
 trial. Cathedral for a certain reason? No.
 
 I08 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 I made out a statement in Mr. Abigail's 
 office, and it was revised by Mr. Moss. 
 Your statement was revised by Mr. 
 Moss ? Why ? He cut out matters 
 not relating to the case. 
 
 Your wife didn't revise it ? No. 
 
 Do you know where that statement 
 is ? No, 
 
 Will you give me an order to get it ? 
 No ; I'll give you no order for anything. 
 
 At this stage the Case was adjourned until 10 a.m. the day 
 following. 
 
 [Received by " Zero" No. 2, at 9 o'clock, Tuesday, the 12th March.}
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 ICQ 
 
 
 [Envelope, enclosing letter to ' ' Zero " No. 2, on the first night of the Trial llth March.] 
 
 
 [Dill-Mucky' s Private Seal on the Envelope of the llth March.]
 
 HO THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 On March the i2th, Mr. Want began the day's proceedings by 
 a continuation of the cross-examination of the Petitioner. The open- 
 ing question had reference to the denied revision of Coningham's- 
 Case. Counsel asked if Petitioner had written the following words : 
 " I find Kelly was not attended by O'H., but another. O'H. buried 
 him." This question, and several others referring to the deceased 
 Kelly, were categorically denied by Coningham. He knew nothing 
 of Kelly. This was astonishing, coming as it did from so usually 
 well-informed a person as Cricketer Coningham. Asked if his wife 
 had not written to him to the effect that he was to be sure and not 
 forget to bring in that she had begged him to spare O'Haran, Peti- 
 tioner replied that she might have written it, but he had never re- 
 ceived it. He did not know what she had written (The Marvellous 
 Man!). Then the old ]uabble between Counsel and Petitioner 
 about the " open order" was gone through to weariness. After this 
 came a writing lesson. " Conny," like a big boy whose education 
 had been neglected, was set the following task in dictation by School- 
 master Want the empanelled Jury acted as an examining board : 
 
 What will you charge for Mabel and Artie. I could not let Mabel and Artie 
 go by themselves. Tell her you have a vacant room if she will board up there 
 for a week or two. 
 
 After the Petitioner had written down those words, the paper 
 was marked for identification. 
 
 The question of the telegram of the iSth February next came on 
 the carpet. The Petitioner was asked if he would swear whether he 
 had sent the telegram in J. Exton's name. He absolutely denied 
 doing so. He was then pressed by Counsel in detail. Would he 
 swear that he did not write that telegram (exhibiting a telegram to 
 Petitioner), and beginning to write his own name, struck it out, and 
 substituted that of J. Exton ? Coningham denied this categorically, 
 and made an insinuation to the effect that a blot had been added to 
 the telegram-form since he had seen it yesterday ; but, in response to 
 Mr. Want's indignant rejoinder, declined to maintain his innuendo. 
 His Honor here said that he thought it right to observe that he did 
 not yesterday notice what was scratched out of the telegram, but he 
 did notice that there was an erasure before the name, " J. Exton." 
 Mr. Want here asked Coningham if he could not see that the letters 
 " A. C." had been scratched out of the telegram, and the subtle 
 " Conny" admitted that he could see "something," but he denied that 
 it was his hand- writing. Said the Senior Counsel to the Petitioner, 
 " You have admitted that these two letters marked " E.," addressed 
 to Miller, are in your hand- writing. Coningham admitted the author- 
 ship. The " oysters and stout " now came to the fore, and the pro- 
 ceedings put on an air of pleasant festivity. The reported evidence 
 runs thus : 
 
 Mr. Want : Look at what is inside I have to be very careful with your 
 them (the letters) will you? I cannot crowd. I do not want any Coogan 
 remember everything that is in them. affair placed upon me.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Mr. Want : You again swear that you 
 never wrote the letter about the "oysters 
 and stout," signed, "Yours, Mabel?" 
 I swear it, absolutely. 
 
 Mr. Want (to the Jury) : Here's the 
 word " Mabel," in the letter he swears 
 he never wrote, and here it is in the 
 
 one he admits having written. Will 
 you gentlemen kindly compare them. 
 You see the one where it says "will 
 you shout," and those words are under- 
 lined. Of course, we all know what 
 that means. 
 
 The Jury inspected the letters at some length. 
 
 Mr. Want (to Mr. Coningham) : You 
 saw this gentleman, Mr, Exton, yester- 
 day ? Yes. 
 
 You were living with him then ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And are not now ? No. 
 
 You left ? Left suddenly. 
 
 Did you walk up with him last night 
 to Ward's, where Mrs. Coningham is 
 living ? Yes. 
 
 You sent a letter by him ? No. 
 
 A parcel ? No ; not a parcel. 
 
 A message ? Not a message. 
 
 What did you send ? 353. 
 
 You see this letter signed " Mabel ?" 
 Yes. 
 
 And enclosing 3 ? Yes. 
 
 And this letter was sent by Exton to 
 Mrs Arnold, enclosing 3 ? It pur- 
 ports to do so. 
 
 And you know your wife was going 
 under the name of " Mrs. Arnold " up 
 there ? No, I did not till you said so 
 yesterday. 
 
 You know ' ' what if I bring up more 
 oysters and stout, will you shout," 
 means ? No, I do not. 
 
 Well most of us do. Did you say 
 anything to Exton about him writing to 
 your wife like that? No. 
 
 He (Exton) was living with you then ? 
 I was living with him. 
 
 You said nothing to him about him 
 writing like that to your wife and send- 
 ing her money ? How do you know he 
 sent it up ? I say the whole thing is a 
 forgery. 
 
 I suppose you know it is your writ- 
 ing ? No, it is not mine; it is like 
 mine. It is not his writing either. 
 
 You say you never got this letter 
 from your wife "Mr. Miller has got 
 some help, and we shall have no sale ?" 
 No, I never got it. 
 
 Yt u heard Mr. Miller was in diffi- 
 culties?-! heard he was in a bit of 
 difficulty. 
 
 And there would be a sale of what ? 
 I don't know. 
 
 Was asale advertised? I don't know. 
 
 Did you receive this from your wife 
 (reading from a letter signed, "Mrs. 
 Arnold, care of Miller") : " If the Bur- 
 wah is in I shall .spend 5 on myself and 
 the baby ?" No. Why don't you ask 
 something sensible ? I know nothing 
 about that. I never knew her as Mrs. 
 Arnold. 
 
 During the last trial did you ask Dr. 
 O'Haran if he had not been improperly- 
 intimate with a certain lady, Mrs. 
 
 B ? Yes ; that is the name, and it 
 
 will be a big B when I am done with 
 her. 
 
 That is the name (handing the name 
 written down) ? -Yes ; that's right. 
 
 Where were you last Saturday night ? 
 In the City. 
 
 Whereabouts ? Up in Jamieson 
 Street. 
 
 Where does Mr. Exton live ? Glen- 
 more Road. 
 
 \Vhat number ? 60. 
 
 Mrs. B is a married lady ? I be- 
 lieve so. 
 
 Do you happen to know she has had 
 a little quarrel with her husband ? I 
 believe so. I heard so. 
 
 Did you know that on Saturday night? 
 No. 
 
 Will you undertake to say you did not 
 
 sleep in fhe same house as Mrs B 
 
 last Saturday night ? No ; I did not. 
 
 W r ere you in the same house with 
 her ? Yes, I was. 
 
 I want you to tell me if Mr. Exton 
 was with her ? Let me see (looking at 
 a pocket-book). 
 
 Mr. Want here grew very much annoyed. He appealed to the 
 Judge, objecting to this continual recourse of the Petitioner to his 
 pocket-book. The occurrence referred to happened only on Satur- 
 day night last. Considering that this precious pocket-book contained
 
 112 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 data by means of which " Conny " hoped to extract damages to the 
 tune of ^"5,000 from Dr. O'Haran, Mr. Want might have termed it, 
 not inappropriately, a pick-pocket-book. The Petitioner \v,is, 
 however, in no wise disconcerted. He explained that it was Ins 
 custom to make a note of his whereabouts every two hours. 
 
 THE ROMEO OF GLENMORE ROAD. 
 
 Resuming the cross-examination, Mr. Want elicited from the 
 Petitioner that a certain woman was at Exton's house on Saturday, 
 the gth March; and that he (Coningham) joined her there. He 
 made his entrance, like a modern Romeo, or a modern burglar, 
 either image will suffice, through the window, at the unromantic 
 hour of 10-15. But alack, and well-a-day, the lady accompanied the 
 raiding swain, though she did not escalade grim escarpments or 
 frowning bastions. No, with a modesty akin to shame, she made 
 her entry, with no tuck of drum or peal of challenging clarion. She 
 was content to glide unpretentiously into the house by the sordid 
 medium of the back-door and it was opened for her by a man 
 named Morris. She did not blow open the lock with an arquebuss 
 which would have smacked of old romance ; neither did she 
 " softly 'lift the latch " which would have savoured of homely 
 poetry. The Court proceedings say nothing of cloaks, masks and 
 dark lanterns ; but an account of a lordly banquet enriches the dull 
 report of this particular day of the trial. The sumptuous fare was 
 not spread in marble halls. But what of that ? Better a dinner of 
 herbs with love than a fatted calf with hatred. The viands may 
 have been humble, but they were succulent and nutritious. The 
 banqueting hall was the kitchen. The nectar may not have been 
 quaffed from goblets of gold ; but it was good and wholesome. Beer 
 and stout, fish and the toothsome sundries that go to make a gallant 
 meal, were provided by the Petitioner with lavish generosity and 
 the lady said she was starving ! There is a touch reminiscent of 
 Don Caesar de Bazan and the banquet scene from " Maritana " in 
 this nocturnal episode though beer and stout savour of something 
 more substantial than quaffs of stage air from gilt goblets. 
 Mediaeval, too, is the darkling suggestion that this Galahad of 
 modern romance visited the glimpses of ill-lit streets in careful 
 watch and ward and protecting shadow of a " bodyguard." True, 
 there was lack of poignard, halberd and partisan ; the dagger played 
 no bravo part, the rapier slumbered in its sheath, and trunk and 
 hose and lace of point were all dust in Shylock's loan-office five 
 hundred years ago. The stiletto made no deep puncture in the 
 darkness of the night when Coningham and his trusty henchman 
 sallied forth on gay adventure bent ; but had not the Knight of St. 
 Willow the nickel-plated revolver gift of Dill-Macky of the ivied 
 Manse ? But this is a digression ! Coningham subsequently made 
 a desperate effort to connect the subject of his clandestine visit with 
 the Case, and made the champion failure on record !
 
 TI:E SECOND TUIAL. 113 
 
 THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER IS RESUMED. 
 
 The cross-examination of the Petititioner elicited the fact (not 
 "alleged" in this instance) that he had, for a period of three months, 
 engaged the attendance and the undivided attention of a person 
 whom he magniloquently described as his " Bodyguard " ; that he 
 (Coningham, not the " Bodyguard ") did not sleep in Exton's house 
 on the night of Saturday, the gth March ; that he entered through 
 the window at 10.15 or 10.30 p.m., and left at about 4.30 a.m. on 
 Sunday morning (the loth March) presumably through the key- 
 hole of the front-door ; that the mysterious Mrs. Somebody might 
 have left at any time unspecified, or might have slept in the 
 burglariously-entered premises ; that she had with her a little child 
 .about a fortnight old ; that he was not in her bedroom on four 
 or five different occasions during the historic night, and that he 
 did not, consequently, know whether she were in bed or not 
 indeed, the Petitioner averred that he was not in her room at all ; 
 that he sent for the supper, although he partook of none himself; 
 that there were seven rooms in the house ; that Mrs. Exton was 
 away as far as he knew, she had gone to Queensland ; that he did 
 not know whether the lady who visited Exton's house on the 
 historic night (per the back-door) had occupied Mrs. Exton's 
 bedroom ; that he had not put her into the bedroom ; that he did not 
 know that the mysterious lady had quarrelled with her husband, but 
 he thought she had; that he had invited her to visit Exton's, 
 although he did not invite her to sleep there ; and that he stopped in 
 the kitchen of Exton's house, talking to Exton up to 4.30 p.m. on 
 Sunday morning. A very pretty chapter of " That's !" 
 
 Mr. Want dropped the nocturnal visit, and went back to the 
 letters. He (the Counsel) said to the Petitioner that he had 
 yesterday shown him a letter, which he (Coningham) had denied as 
 being in his hand-writing. It was signed " Mabel." Did Petitioner 
 know anyone whose name began with " F " and ended with " Y " ? 
 The Petitioner was for a moment non-plussed which is a strange 
 thing to have to record of a man of his supernal impudence. The 
 letter, continued Counsel, was posted on the 26th February. Did 
 Coningham go to Fairfield on the Sunday (3rd March) following 
 that date ? The Petitioner replied that if the Sunday were a fort- 
 night's space of time from last Sunday that was the date upon which 
 ;he went to Fairfield. [The 27th February was the Sunday upon 
 which Coningham visited the menage de Miller."} The part of the 
 letter, posted on the 26th February, to which Mr. Want referred, 
 read : 
 
 " February 25. Caught Miss F y in a trap, and the man spoilt it. Will 
 try again soon. She must fall in." 
 
 The Senior Counsel for the Defence wanted to know if "Conny" 
 knew anyone whose initial and concluding letter tallied with those 
 given. Of course, the conveniently-memoried Petitioner knew abso-
 
 114 THE CON'INGHAM CASE. 
 
 lutely nothing of such things. Mr. Want desired to know whether 
 Coningham had not taken to an oyster-saloon and a wine-shop in 
 Oxford Street a lady the initial and terminal letters of whose name 
 corresponded with those just given. The Petitioner's virtue revolted! 
 at this allegation \ The oyster-saloon did not greatly stagger him - r 
 but he indignantly interjected " Not a wine-shop I" 
 
 Mr. Want then wrote down the name of the lady referred to.- 
 ". Conny " said that he did not know it, and he did not know if it 
 were her professional name that was written down. In fact, like the 
 Scandinavian housemaid, in the farcical comedy of " What 
 Happened to Jones ?" he never saw her come in, he never saw her go 
 out, and he never saw her nohow I Then the burly King's Counsel 
 asked the Petitioner to write the fair incognita's name ; but the wily 
 cricketer objected to do so, though he offered to let the Judge see it. 
 Mr. Want pressed for a reply to his question in order to get the 
 name of the mysterious unknown ; but the champion of Female 
 Loveliness, Coningham, said, " I will not give you the name whether 
 you press for it or not. They are trying to get the other name so- 
 thai a subpoena would not be served on this woman." 
 
 Counsel then wrote down the name, and Coningham said he 
 knew it to be a correct name. Two names were written down, one 
 of which the Petitioner said was the married name of the lady, and 
 the other in which occurred the letters " F " and " Y " was said to- 
 be the lady's professional name, and he would swear that he had 
 never asked for her at a drapery establishment in Oxford Street and 
 
 styled her " F y." When he went to the establishment he 
 
 asked for the lady by her married name. The skirmish between 
 Mr. Want and Coningham began almost as simultaneous in question 
 and answer as a fusillade. Here is a quotation from the reported 
 evidence : 
 
 Do you "know a man named Elliott ? You'll admit you were at the wine- 
 
 Yes \ shop with her ? Yes. 
 
 Will you swear to this passage in You went there with her ? No ; I 
 
 this letter : " Caught Miss F y in went there to find her. 
 
 a trap, but the man spoiled it ; will try You went into the oyster-saloon with 
 
 again," didn't refer to an attempt to her? Yes. 
 
 get her into an assignation-house with And had something to drink ? Only 
 
 a man named Elliott? I know noth- a cup of tea. 
 
 ing of the letter, I told you. What did she have ? Some oysters. 
 
 Do you know anything of any at- How long was that ago ? About six 
 
 tempt to get her into such a trap ? weeks. 
 
 Yes, I know a lot about it. Before that she was a stranger to 
 
 Wasn't there an attempt on your you ? Yes, a perfect stranger. 
 
 part to get this lady into an assignation Mr. Want : Now 
 
 house with Elliott, so that you could. Petitioner: Don't leave that yet. 
 
 trap her there and get her to make a Haven't you any more suggestions to 
 
 statement against Dr. O'Haran? No; make? A man taking a woman inio 
 
 decidedly not. an oyster shop, you know, is open to 
 
 Your .intention being to threaten more suggestions. 
 
 that, if she did not do as you wanted, Mr. Want : Never mind about that, 
 
 you would expose her to her husband ? You'll get plenty more. We don't want 
 
 No. to let you know too much yet. What's
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 115 
 
 ihe name of the man who keeps the to do with a theatre ; I don't know 
 shop Carl Hecht ? Yes. what. 
 
 -.1 Did you ever tell him that that was 
 
 Did you have a conversation with . , , , } , , XT 
 
 ElUottlbou, this lady --Yes, I be- j^-S.*SMKBSl* 
 
 anyone that it was a bit of bad luck for 
 
 How long have you known him? yoUi fi x j ng upon j une 29, 1898, as the 
 Eight or ten years. fi rst date of improper approaches ? 
 
 What does he do ? He's something No. 
 
 The Petitioner was slow in admitting irrefutable evidence. 
 When asked by Mr. Want if he did not know that at the former 
 trial eight different witnesses proved that Dr. O'Haran was at 
 Burwood at the time in question, he remarked that they tried to 
 prove it. Mr. Want said with vehemence, " They swore it !" 
 Coningham retorted, " They would swear anything !" Counsel, with 
 a smothered laugh in his voice, asked the Petitioner if he had not 
 a c terwards said, in the presence of more than one person, that he had 
 had a bit of bad luck in fixing on the 2gth June, 1898, because the 
 Co-respondent had been able to prove an alibi. Coningham gave 
 this an unconditional denial. Hum, he (the Petitioner) had had a 
 little bad luck in business, remarked Mr. Want. " Yes," " Conny " 
 admitted, " at times !" 
 
 COMXGHAM'S TROUBLES. 
 
 Then came the history of the Petitioner's business and financial 
 disasters, drawn out, bit by bit, from the reluctant cricketing chemist 
 bankrupt. He had, in his time, played otherwise than in the cricket 
 field. Among his various roles he had assumed that of tobacconist, 
 and dispensed the fragrant cigar and the seductive cigarette to 
 admirers whose custom was a tribute to their idol's erstwhile prowess 
 at the stumps. He had once a place of business at the Glebe, which 
 h3 insured for ^250, and a fire broke out on the 6th December, 1898 
 fires will sometimes break out, particularly in premises the 
 O ;cupiers of which are insured. But Coningham really could not 
 remember whether there had been an investigation. In fact, he 
 would swear that the insurance company did not go through the 
 books and papers, because they were practically burnt. The 
 Company did, however, send a man out to assess the damages. The 
 amount was 120 an amount, it appears, Coningham was glad to 
 accept. He asked the Company to re-insure him, but he was 
 informed that they never re-insured. This is " Conny's " unsophis- 
 ticated way of putting it. As a matter of mere unvarnished fact, he 
 simply made a formal claim by letter, and does not appear to have 
 been asked to send in a proper detailed claim. Mr. Rooke, of 
 Queensland Chambers (18 Bridge Street) was appointed by the 
 Atlas Insurance Company (the office in which Coningham had 
 taken out his policy) to adjust the matter. It proved to be a most 
 unsatisfactory case, indeed, and Mr. Rooke had a deal of trouble 
 over it. He, however, made his own estimate of the actual loss, and 
 subsequently Coningham accepted the amount offered, viz., ^"120.
 
 Il6 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 The fire was a very suspicious one, and was extinguished rather toon 
 quickly, it is alleged, to suit the party most concerned. Although 
 the adjuster estimated the loss at ^120, he reported to the office that 
 the whole thing was so unsatisfactory that payment had better he 
 deferred as long as possible, in the hope that some proof of bad faith 
 might be discovered. Payment was, therefore, held back for two- 
 months, when the Company was compelled to hand over the money. 
 It was, doubtless, this circumstance that caused the report to be 
 circulated that Coningham had received nothing ; and this may have 
 suited that gentleman right down to the ground. Subsequent to this 
 fire Coningham re-appeared in King-street, next door to the Daily 
 Telegraph Office, and he again applied to the Atlas Insurance 
 Company for a policy. They politely, but firmly, declined to> 
 accommodate him. 
 
 During his cross-examination by Mr. Want, over the matter of 
 the fire, the Petitioner replied to Counsel in loud and indignant tones, 
 and Counsel appealed to his Honor to make him speak more respect- 
 fully. Coningham cried out that he had to speak emphatically with 
 such Counsel against him. But his Honor thought not. The Peti- 
 tioner must remember that he was speaking to Counsel, and not to a. 
 " gang." His Honor had already borne with Petitioner a good deal, 
 because he was there without the advantage of Counsel, and he must 
 now tell him that he (Coningham) must be respectful in his tones. 
 The Petitioner very humbly apologised to Mr. Want. As the last- 
 named gentleman said, twittingly, the Petitioner was always apolo- 
 gising particularly to his Honor. Indeed, Coningham was a verit- 
 able Parolles in alternate spasms of bluster and back-down. The 
 Judge concluded a well-merited rebuke by informing Cricketer Con- 
 ingham that he could answer quite as clearly in respectful tones as 
 in loud tones. 
 
 The Senior Counsel in the suit, having finished warming his 
 case at the Petitioner's unfortunate fire, gaily took it for an airing 
 into the Bankruptcy Court. Coningham was forced to admit having 
 faced the music. Yes, he had been made an insolvent. By people 
 who had lent him rhoney ? well, yes ! He knew Mr. Waterhouse, 
 late Mayor of Waverley, Mr. Firth, Mr. Evans, and Mr. M'Elhone. 
 They were gentlemen connected with the Waverley Cricket Club- 
 amateur knights of the willow, in fact, and they had given Coning- 
 ham a start there in business, and afterwards made him insolvent. 
 The arrangement with these gentlemen was a cricketing matter, so 
 that the Petitioner could play in the Waverley Cricketing Club. The 
 Registrar in Bankruptcy, Mr. Henry, Coningham admitted, may 
 have written about his insolvency the words : " The bankrupt's con- 
 duct is very unsatisfactory, and his answers evasive." Five gentle- 
 men put up /"io apiece to help the Petitioner, and he turned pro- 
 fessional cricketer in order to pay them. After a little skirmishing 
 around " Conny's" insolvency, Mr. Want got back to the main issues 
 of the Case. Here is some of the reported evidence :
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 Mr. Want : How much money have 
 you sent your wife since this suit 
 started ? Abouc /a a week. 
 
 That is apart from the 3 you say 
 you know nothing about ? Yes. 
 
 Whose writing is this (holding up a 
 letter) ? It was put in at the last trial ; 
 it is my wife's. 
 
 I want to put that letter in ? I ob- 
 ject. 
 
 You have never paid Mrs. Bray the 
 2 55. for the dishonoured cheque ? 
 No. 
 
 Nor the xos. you got in cash ? I did 
 not get the IDS. 
 
 Well, your wife got it. 
 
 Mr. Want read a portion of a letter 
 from Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel, 
 in which the former said : " I have not 
 received a penny from ' Connie' yet." 
 That, Mr. Want said, was on February 
 15, 1900 ? That's while I was in 
 Queensland. 
 
 And the letter goes on : " The people 
 here got a cheque that was dishonoured. 
 I wonder the people do not turn us out. 
 I am so sorry. Oh, the humiliation of 
 it all is dreadful. Then I can't believe 
 one word he utters." Do you know 
 your wife says that about you ? Yes, 
 she has explained it. 
 
 Is it true that these people got a dis- 
 honoured cheque from you ? No, it 
 was never presented. It was lost, and 
 I wrote over to Queensland for another. 
 
 How much did you owe Miller when 
 you left there ? I don't know. 
 
 * * / 
 
 And you don't care? No, I don't 
 care. 
 
 You don't care? I'll tell you later 
 on if I care or not, when this trial's 
 over. 
 
 You mean that you don't care ? 
 Yes ; I'll show you later on why I mean 
 it. 
 
 And that was for the board and lodg- 
 ing for yourself and wife and children ? 
 That's right. 
 
 At this stage Mr. Want produced a 
 number of photographic enlargements 
 of the addresses on the two letter-cards 
 signed "Mabel," one being addressed 
 to" Mrs. Arnold," at" Wetherill Park," 
 and the other to " Mr. Miller," at the 
 same place. Mr. Want explained to 
 his Honor that the Petitioner admitted 
 having written the one to" Mr. Miller," 
 but denied writing the one to " Mrs. 
 Arnold," and Counsel wished the Jury, 
 by means of the photographs, to com- 
 pare the writing on both. The photo- 
 graphs were then handed to the Jury 
 for inspection. 
 
 Mr. Want (to Petitioner) : Would you 
 like to see what I am pointing out ? 
 No, never mind. 
 
 After the Jury had made the com- 
 parison, the Petitioner asked to be al- 
 lowed to examine the addresses, and 
 " I want to see where the ' pork' comes 
 in. I'm rather fond of bacon," re- 
 marked Mr. Coningham. 
 
 Mr. Want asked the Petitioner if he knew a Mrs. R ~, and 
 
 Petitioner answered that he had known her for a fairly long period : 
 but he had not at any time taken her up to Miller's, nor had he gone 
 
 with her, nor had he joined anyone there. Mrs. R had gone to 
 
 Fairfield in the same train as himself with her sister, and three, or 
 four, or five children ; but he (Coningham) had gone up by himself. 
 He did not remember the date. It might have been about six weeks 
 ago. He travelled by the Sunday morning, 9.40 train, on what date 
 
 he could not say. No, he did not arrange to go with Mrs. R , 
 
 and he would not swear that he sent a telegram to Miller, saying he 
 would go with her. But he would not swear he had not 'done so ! 
 Mr. and Mrs. Russell and her children visited Mrs. Coningham and 
 himself when they were up there. He did not remember what he 
 told Miller in the telegram about the time when he served the peti- 
 tion. He would not swear that he sent a telegram to Miller, pre- 
 paring him for the visit. He may have sent a telegram saying " we" 
 Exton and himself were going to Fairfield. Exton lost the train. 
 
 As far as he knew it was a pure accident that Mrs. R was in the 
 
 train, and going up to the same place. He stayed three or four hours,
 
 n8 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 and came back with Mrs. R . Mr. Want said that he required 
 
 the date ! Coningham had told the Court that he put everything 
 down in his pocket-book every two hours. The Petitioner rather 
 weakly explained that he had a memorandum somewhere else, Vv'hich 
 he would get after lunch. 
 
 Back to the bankruptcy again ! Counsel observed that Coning- 
 ham had said that the petition in bankruptcy was brought against 
 him in a vindictive spirit. " Yes," said the Petitioner. Mr. Want 
 read the Registrar's remarks on the petition, as follows : 
 
 " Bankrupt present. Bankrupt's conduct was very unsatisfactory, and his 
 answers evasive. I am of opinion that he failed to disclose his affairs, and, 
 under the circumstances, the examination is adjourned sine die." 
 
 BACK TO THE LETTERS. 
 
 The switch was turned off the bankruptcy and on to the letter 
 business this time the letter is one admittedly genuine. Reverting 
 again to reported evidence : 
 
 Mr. Want : Will you look at this 
 letter, an exhibit last time It is in 
 your wife's writing ? I believe so. 
 
 You told us you got your wife's con- 
 fession on May 24, and you occupied 
 the same bedroom till the middle of 
 June. How long did you remain ? 
 Some weeks. 
 
 Did you occupy the same bedroom 
 all the rest of the time you were there ? 
 Yes : I could not afford two rooms. 
 
 You occupied the same bedroom at 
 Mrs. Abraham's in the latter part of 
 September ? Yes. 
 
 But you could afford one then. You 
 had one at Mrs. Bray's ? I could not 
 afford it. 
 
 But you had it. Now let us come to 
 Mrs. Abraham's, you left there and 
 served her with the petition ? Do you 
 know the day you left ? I am not 
 certain, about September 25 or 26. 
 
 You have left that out of your 
 memos ? Yes. 
 
 Did you arrange with your wife to 
 send you another letter while you were 
 away ? No. Why don't you ask sensi- 
 ble questions. That is a ridiculous 
 question, your Honor. 
 
 You must answer them if they are 
 ridiculous. 
 
 Did you get this letter ? Yes, I was 
 going travelling. 
 
 This is it : Vallis Court, Darling- 
 hurst Road, October i, 1900. My dear 
 husband, I am writing to ask you to 
 come up, and see your children. They 
 are continually asking after you, and 
 Artie has been very ill with croup. 
 How could you do such a thing as you 
 have done ? I remember you promised 
 if I told you all you would forgive me, 
 and instead you petition for a divorce ; 
 but I s \vear you will never obtain it in 
 the courts. I will die first that were 
 easy to the publicity you are preparing. 
 I have suffered so much, and will be 
 good for the future, and for my babies 
 and your own sake, do spare me. You 
 could not dream of taking my Mabel 
 from me. She would not go. Praying 
 you will come up in a forgiving mood. 
 I am getting so thin. You will scarcely 
 credit it. I am your repentant wife, 
 Alice Coningham. P.S. I enclose 
 this, as I don't know what to do with 
 it, and am afraid to keep it. Do tell 
 me you will destroy it. A.C." 
 
 Of course, you did not fix that up ? 
 No, certainly not. 
 
 After that letter you paid the board 
 and lodging and occupied the same 
 bedroom ? Yes, within a week. 
 
 Cricketer Coningham more or less cheerfully admitted various 
 facts concerning his wife's Brisbane career. He said that he had 
 not heard before going to the northern city that his wife, prior to her 
 marriage, had gone about in widow's weeds. Yes, it had been said 
 during the last trial. At that time he knew she had been going
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 119 
 
 about as a widow, but he did not know that she was wearing 
 widow's weeds. Oh, yes, he was aware that his wife, when she 
 sustained the somewhat melodramatic role of a widow, was called 
 " Mrs. Rogers." " Conny " would not swear that he did not ask her 
 whether she was a widow, or not. Indeed, he did not "want to know! 
 He did not understand what she represented herself to be. The 
 Petitioner had once asked her why she went about impersonating a 
 mythical " Mrs. Rogers," and she said that she did it for business 
 purposes, in connection with a soldier's canteen. No (wearily), he 
 -never asked her why she posed as a widow. He never went to the 
 trouble of finding out. He took her as he found her, for better or 
 tor worse. She was a good girl, and he married her. It was correct, 
 as he stated at the former trial, that he never knew that Alice Stanford 
 Dowling, the woman of whom he afterwards made Mrs. Coningham, 
 was the mother of a child born prior to wedlock. No, the fact was 
 not kept from him ! His wife wanted to tell him the story of her 
 ^arly life ; but he would not allow her. He was perfectly satisfied 
 with her as he found her " as good a woman as ever breathed on 
 earth " and she kept the books in connection with the canteen. 
 
 This is bathetic ! One cannot help being reminded of 
 Thackeray's burlesque verses of Goethe's " Sorrows of Werther," 
 in which Charlotte, seeing her lover's body carried, past the house, 
 upon a shutter, like a good and virtuous maiden, went on cutting 
 bread-and-butter. Alice Stanford Dowling was as good a woman 
 as ever breathed on earth, and she kept the canteen liquor 
 books. She also, probably, polished up the handle of the big front- 
 door. But this digression must be read without prejudice. The 
 rapid, independent firing between Counsel and Petitioner was highly 
 exhilirating to the spectators in Court. Here is a specimen of 
 smart give and take from the reported evidence : 
 
 Will you swear she was' never a Petitioner : Yes, and champagne, 
 
 servant at Unmack's to your know- and Chartreuse, and Benedictine, and 
 
 ledge ? I will swear she never was a all the rest, 
 servant there. Mr. Want : Don't you know, sir, 
 
 You have never seen an admission that the birth of that child was regis- 
 
 ihat she was, in her own hand-writing? tered in Brisbane, for everyone to see ? 
 
 I'll swear I have never seen such a I know now, I didn't then, 
 thing. And you know now that Mrs. 
 
 You heard her swear, last trial, in Gorman was the nurse that confined 
 
 Court, that she had had an illegitimate her ? Yes. 
 child ? Yes. Did you know, before the last trial, 
 
 And that had been kept from you ? that she was here in town ? No ; I 
 
 No, she had made attempts to tell me hope she's here this time.' 
 something about her early life, but I Did you know her husband was 
 
 wouldn't let her. here ? No. 
 
 You wouldn't let her ? No. I was You know him ? I think I do, but I 
 
 satisfied with her. She was a good won't swear that. 
 
 girl ; and she remained a good girl till He's the orderly at Government 
 
 the Co-respondent seduced her. House, Brisbane ? You know that ? 
 
 Oh, yes, I know. all about that we I won't swear that. 
 
 had that last time "oysters and When were you at Brisbane last ? 
 
 istout." Last Thursday.
 
 120 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 I asked you whether you hadn't had 
 the first confession altered, in which it 
 was stated that she had never had any 
 improper relations with anybody else, 
 dated May 24, to another, in which 
 "during her married life " was inserted, 
 or added ? No ; I had not. There 
 was only one confession. 
 
 And whether that wasn't altered' 
 when you heard that the woman, Mrs. 
 Gorman, was coming down here, who 
 knew about the illegitimate child? 
 No; I swear it again. There was no 
 confession but the one of June 13. 
 
 You swear it again ? Yes ; I swear 
 it again. 
 
 The Petitioner admitted being in Brisbane lately; for a few 
 hours only, though he got all he went for. Mr. Want asked 
 Coningham if, whilst he held the confession of the I3th June, he 
 admitted that he had another confession signed " Alice, 24th May,. 
 1900 ?" To this Coningham answered quickly and emphatically 
 that there was one confession only, that of the i3th June. Mr. Want 
 asked the Petitioner if there were another confession would he give 
 him (Counsel) an " open order " to get it. " No," shouted Coning- 
 ham, . " I'll give you an ' open order ' for nothing ! The Co- 
 respondent's crowd will get it for you !" 
 
 Mr. Want, at this stage, intimated to his Honor that he had 
 finished his cross-examination. 
 
 THE PETITIONER IN REPLY. 
 
 Petitioner said he wished to get at 
 those letters he had served them with 
 notice to produce letters to the Co- 
 respondent. His Honor had said that 
 if he were satisfied 
 
 His Honor remarked that what he 
 did say '.v:-. ' hat he would not consider 
 ths production or otherwise of such 
 letters until after ths evidence had been 
 given. He had since consulted authori- 
 ties on the matter, and found that they 
 were inadmissible. The letters written 
 by the Petitioner to the Co-respondent 
 of course could not possibly be evi- 
 dence. That was to say, he could not 
 put in evidence a letter he had himself 
 written to the other side. But some- 
 times a letter of that kind was admis- 
 sible, coupled with the reply or with 
 the fact that there was no reply. Then 
 the fact of the Petitioner writing a 
 letter, and there being no reply, or be- 
 ing a reply which practically admitted 
 the letter, then the two together were 
 admissible for.the purpose of showing 
 the admission of the statement alleged 
 by him in the letter. But that very 
 seldom applied, and it onl/ applied to 
 cases where a person was called upon 
 to make a repl>-. For instance, if a 
 charge were brought against a person 
 to hio face it was only to be expected 
 that he would then and there replv to 
 it. If he didn't replj it might be taken 
 
 that he admitted his guilt. But that 
 did not apply to a letter containing a 
 charge that did not oblige the receiver 
 to reply. The case he would refer to 
 on this point had been cited again and 
 again in their own courts. It was the 
 case of Regan v. Walpole, 91, 2 Queen's 
 Bench, at page 534. That was a case 
 for breach of promise of marriage, and 
 the ladv , who alleged that she had been 
 promised marriage, sought to put in 
 evidence letters written by her to the 
 gentleman v, ho was said to have pro- 
 mised her marriage, and sought to give 
 evidence that as he had not replied to 
 those letters that therefore the letters 
 could go in, and the fact that he had 
 not replied to them. The case was tried 
 by the Judge, who admitted the letters 
 in evidence. It then came before the 
 Appellant Court, which held that the 
 Judge was wrong. 
 
 The Petitioner said it was not the 
 fact of his having charged the Co- 
 respondent with adultery with his wife. 
 
 It was the fearful threats 
 
 - His Honor : That made it still more 
 objectionable. Silence in a case of that 
 kind is no admission of guilt whatever. 
 
 Mr. Want: Will \our Honor allow 
 me to ask him a question ? 
 
 Petitioner : Wait till I have finished, 
 please.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 I2T 
 
 Mr. Want : I wanted to ask him. 
 your Honor, with regard to those very 
 letters ; but I'll wait if you think it 
 better. 
 
 His Honor: I want to know what 
 Mr. Coningham desires to say. Of 
 course, he does not understand the 
 practice. 
 
 Petitioner : The only reply I desire 
 to make is to those insinuations with 
 regard to Mr. and Mrs. Russell. I may 
 tell you, your Honor, that they have 
 been friends of mine for months, and 
 from what I gathered, Mr. Miller gave 
 either an open invitation to Mrs. Russell 
 and her sister to visit the place, and by 
 a coincidence I happened to go up at 
 the same time. The insinuation is that 
 I took her. We are still the best of 
 friends. 
 
 Mr. Want : He has no right to say I 
 insinuated those things. I wanted to 
 get a telegram he sent in order to get 
 his hand-writing. 
 
 His Honor (to Petitioner) : It is not 
 right to make a speech in that way. 
 You must reserve your remarks until 
 the close of the evidence. 
 
 Petitioner : With regard to Mrs. B . 
 I took her to Exton's place for the pur- 
 pose of getting an affidavit from her, 
 and the woman told me 
 
 Mr. Want : I object. We can't have 
 that. 
 
 Petitioner : With regard to Water- 
 house's affidavit, he gave me an order 
 for ^"30 to Sutton and Company, and if 
 they went beyond that it had nothing 
 to do with him. And as to my evasive 
 answers in connection with the bank- 
 ruptcy, the very solicitor who was the 
 cause of them asked the Registrar, a 
 
 fortnight later, to grant me my certi- 
 ficate, stating that he had never had 
 such a straightfoBward client. 
 
 His Honor : Have you got your cer- 
 tificate ? No ; it was burnt in the fire. 
 
 But was it granted to you ? Yes, 
 your Honor. 
 
 Mr. Want : He paid the money. 
 
 Petitioner: As to the fire, there were 
 eight or nine people in the shop after I 
 left it, and the police and everybody 
 else were so satisfied that it was all righ t 
 that they paid the money without any 
 protest at all. And I will state now, as 
 I don't think I will have another chance,, 
 that those letters are forgeries. They 
 are very like my hand-writing ; but I 
 never wrote them. They are forgeries., 
 and I will prove them to be forgeries. 
 
 I WILL PROVE FORGERY, PERJURY, 
 SEDUCTION, AND VERY NEARLY MURDER 
 BEFORE THIS IS OVER. 
 
 Mr. Want : Another question. Did 
 you hear the Co-respondent say, at the 
 last trial : " I received letters purport- 
 ing to come from the Petitioner, and I 
 handed them to Superintendent Cam- 
 phin, of the Detective Office?" Yes; 
 but they did'nt put Superintendent 
 Camphin in the box to show when they 
 were handed to him. 
 
 His Honor : Mr. Want, I may re- 
 mind the Petitioner that he has not yet 
 proved the marriage. 
 
 Petitioner : The certificate is here,, 
 your Honor. 
 
 His Honor (reading it) : You married 
 your wife under the name of Alice Stan- 
 ford Dowling, on March n, 1893, at 
 Bondi ? Yes. 
 
 . The certificate was then put in as- 
 evidence. 
 
 A BELATED WEDDING . AN INTERLUDE. 
 
 IT will not be unprofitable to narrate here a little romance of which 
 neither Coningham nor his fleckless wife is hero or heroine. The 
 leading part belongs to the good'priest of St. Joseph's, the Rev. 
 Father T. A. Fitzgerald, O.F.M., of Edgecliff. The evidence upon 
 which the story is based has lain in the office of Dr. O'Haran's 
 solicitor these five months or more, and was deposited there prior 
 to the first hearing of the Coningham Case. 
 
 It was in the leafy summer time, in the cool of the evening. 
 The month was March, the year that of 1893. The Priest had all 
 the afternoon been absent, attending to his parochial duties, and 
 did not return to the Presbytery until about 9 o'clock at night, tired 
 out with a long day's work. But there was no rest for him. There 
 was a Mission in the Church of St. Francis, Paddington, of which.
 
 ;I22 THE CGXIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 Father Fitzgerald then held the curacy. People were continually 
 going in and out of the Sacristy, and all was life and movement. 
 Then, too, there was a couple who had come to get married. The 
 bridegroom expectant was plainly clad in an ordinary tweed walk- 
 ing suit ; but the bride was dressed regardless of expense. Her 
 shoes were of white satin, her opera-cloak was lined with swans- 
 down ; she was pranked out as gaily as a fritillary butterfly. The 
 man was Arthur Coningham ; the woman was Alice Stanford 
 Dowling. 
 
 Now, during the second hearing of the notorious Case, Cricketer 
 "' Conny" swore that he would not marry Miss Dowling in a Roman 
 Catholic Church. This is somewhat disingenuous. It was also 
 alleged that his objection to the solemnization of his wedding 
 according to the Catholic rites was the reason why he was married 
 in the Church of England, at Bondi, on the nth March, 1893, a 
 week after the St. Francis' episode. 
 
 Then Mrs. Coningham swore, too, during the second hearing 
 of the Case, that the reason why the Petitioner did not marry her 
 in the Catholic Church at Paddington was because a paper had to 
 be signed rendering obligatory upon him the education of his pro- 
 spective children in the Catholic faith. As it happens, the paper 
 in question was not presented to him, though it would have been 
 presented immediately after the signing of the declaration. Indeed, 
 Coningham's objection to this could have been only skin-deep, as 
 the fact remains that he allowed all his children who (like his 
 curious letters) he admitted and denied to suit an ulterior purpose 
 to be baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. He acknow- 
 ledged this in his address in the second hearing of the Case, and 
 the half-filled-in marriage certificate was also put in as evidence. 
 
 On the 2nd March, 1893, Miss Alice Dowling came to Father 
 Fitzgerald to arrange her marriage at St. Francis' Church, Pad- 
 dington. The good cleric pointed out to her the difficulty of get- 
 ting a dispensation for a mixed marriage without a letter from the 
 Parish Priest at Brisbane. She jauntily and confidently replied, 
 "Oh, I will manage that." Father Fitzgerald then referred her 
 to Dr. Murphy now the President of Manly College, but then at 
 St. Mary's, acting in the place of Dr. O'Haran, who was away. 
 Dr. Murphy issued the dispensation to Alice Stanford Dowling, 
 and Father Fitzgerald received it, either from her personally or 
 through the post (he is not certain which), and he has the docu- 
 ment to this day. 
 
 At all events, the parties presented themselves at the Presby- 
 tery for the purpose of being united in the holy bonds of matrimony. 
 It was a mixed marriage, people were passing in and out of the 
 Sacristy, for a Mission was in progress at the Church. The com- 
 bination of circumstances made it desirable that the marriage 
 should take place in the parlour of the Presbytery instead of in the 
 :Sacristy. When the good priest entered the room he saw Coning-
 
 THE SECOND TKIAL 123; 
 
 ham silling down in a surly mood, his face wearing an angry frown. 
 He was one of the most wretched-looking bridegrooms the Father 
 ever gazed upon. Miss Dowling glanced pleadingly at the Priest 
 as though she wished him to overlook her unwilling swain's de- 
 meanour. Coningham behaved, indeed, as though he had been 
 taken to the place against his wish, and evidently did not want to 
 marry the lady. The pros and cons of the matter were argued for 
 a long, long, weary time. Anxious bride and reluctant bridegroom 
 and judicial-minded clergyman sat and talked and objected and 
 pleaded and grumbled and advised, according to interests and char- 
 acter, for at least two hours. The distracted lady was in dire 
 trouble. At first she was all smiles and sweetness towards her 
 intended victim. She spoke in accents of honey, and coaxed her 
 " Conny" to toe the mark. But she was dramatic throughout the 
 interview. Coningham, however, proved proof against her blan- 
 dishments. Then she passionately appealed to him to yield but 
 appealed in vain to ears that heard not and a mind that refused to 
 comprehend. The woman was bitterly disappointed at not suc- 
 ceeding in getting the recalcitrant cricketer up to the scratch, and 
 said that she was homeless, practically homeless. She had 
 left her mother's house in Brisbane ; she had quarrelled with her 
 mother ; she had come direct from the north to throw herself into 
 a husband's arms. All this delivered with great nervousness and 
 distressful emotion. Then, when her moody lover's back was 
 turned, she became all tigress, and hissed minaciously through her 
 set teeth, " I will have him to the Supreme Court if he doesn't 
 marry me !" 
 
 Three times this ill-assorted pair stood up before the table to 
 be joined together in marriage ; and three times they sat down with 
 the rite unaccomplished. The good priest expostulated with the 
 would-be bride for striving to wed a man against his will, and told 
 her that her behaviour was undignified. There is something as 
 ludicrous as pathetic in the reconstruction of the scene. There sits 
 the scowling athlete, chafing and fuming at a connubial entrap- 
 ment ; there the actress, alternately praying and threatening; aloof 
 stands the priest, consoling, advising, remonstrating. Father 
 Fitzgerald narrates that he had three sets of witnesses in waiting 
 to sign the marriage contract one after another, for he could not 
 keep one pair cooling their heels in an ante-chamber while the bride 
 and bridegoom elect settled their pre-nuptial differences. The tjood 
 priest was obliged to go out to each set in succession and say, 
 " You will have to go ; there is no chance of an agreement." 
 
 When Coningham and Miss Dowling stood up the third time 
 to go through the form of marriage, the contracting male, when 
 reading the declaration to be made before the ceremony could be 
 performed, stopped short at the words, " Kindred, relationship, 
 or alliance." The priest, seeing that this was a mere pretext, sum- 
 marily dismissed both parties, and refused to marry them, because,.
 
 124 THE CONINGIIAM CASE. 
 
 -though Coningham might say the words, he was not co 
 with his heart. Such a marriage, being opposed to the doctrii e 
 of the Church, could not be performed, on the ground that though 
 there would be a legal contract if he signed the certificate, yet 
 there would be no real marriage, as the man was acting under com- 
 pulsion. Coningham said something to the effect that his lack of 
 enthusiasm in the matter arose from the fact that his mother, or 
 grandmother, objected to his marrying before he reached a certain 
 age. [This is very funny ! when it is remembered that he after- 
 wards put off his creditors, particularly Mr. W. Miller, by repre- 
 senting that he expected a money gift of some ,5,000 frcm his 
 grandmother. The venerable lady, in this instance, did duty for 
 Dr. O'Haran, and the sum of ,"5,000 represented the extravagant 
 blackmail Coningham expected to wring from that gentleman. 
 It would be interesting to know the name of the person who did 
 duly for Coningham's grandmother on the occasion of his abortive 
 attempt at matrimony at St. Francis' Church. J Father Fitzgerald 
 records that when " Conny" saw, right through the proceedings, 
 that he (Father Fitzgerald) took his part, his demeanour became 
 most affable, and when the priest finally refused to marry him, he 
 seemed most grateful. When going out at the gate the relieved 
 lover stretched out his hand as though to offer recompense for the 
 waste of the reverend gentleman's time. Father Fitzgerald re- 
 fused, remarking that he took no money for marriages that did not 
 come off. The curious conple then left, and as they did so, Alice 
 Dowling said to the priest, " You might as well have married us, 
 for we are going to the Coffee Palace all the same!" [Right 
 through the piece she seems to have held the whip-hand over her 
 husband. Verily she is the authoress of the drama of "Arthur 
 Coningham's Life," and he is only a mummer that plays the juvenile 
 lead.] At this time, it must be remembered, Alice Coningham was 
 staying with her married sister, Mrs. Bostock, at Bondi. 
 
 Father Fitzgerald says that he understood that the Respondent 
 (then Alice Dowling) came direct from Brisbane to marry Con- 
 ingham. From that day, 3rd March, 1893, she never went near 
 this wise clergyman, who told her on the night of the proposed 
 marriage that the day would come when she would bless him for 
 refusing to marry her. However, the Coninghams at one time 
 lived in Queen Street, in Father Fitzgerald's parish. Coningham, 
 said the priest, offered, during the proceedings, to provide the 
 Respondent with money while he was absent on his cricketing 
 tour in England in 1893, and to marry her at a later period. 
 
 MRS. CONINGHAM IN THE WITNESS-BOX. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham was then called, and she entered the witness- 
 ~box. Her demeanour was no less assured than in the former trial, 
 although her face bore witness of the stress and strain of hope 
 deterred and expectation long drawn out. In connection with the
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 '25 
 
 -previous esclandre, Gilbert Prohyn Smith, a Sydney journalist, 
 -contributed to the Melbourne Punch the following pen-and-ink 
 sketch of " Mrs. Coninjjham in Court " : 
 
 To hear Mrs. Coningham give her 
 .evidence in Court was to imagine one 
 saw a Sphinx talking. Utterly emotion- 
 less, she answered the questions put to 
 her as though she was conversing with 
 an ordinary friend on every -day matters. 
 She gave the impression that she did 
 not realise she was in a Court of Jus- 
 tice with every eye upon her. There 
 was no theatrical display, no hysteria 
 not even a muscle moved. Once 
 her lips twitched. It was when Mr. 
 Want asked her if she had had an 
 illegitimate child when she was fifteen 
 years of age. She was preparing to 
 .answer when the Judge told her she 
 need not. And later, when of her own 
 volition she gave the information, her 
 countenance wore the same expression 
 .as when she answered questions of 
 minor import. The voice, however, was 
 the charm. It gave life to every word. 
 Clear and silvery in tone, the words 
 carried through its medium the effect 
 of fascinating her hearers. Mr. Want 
 is a splendid cross-examiner. He is 
 nearly as severe as Mr. Purves, though 
 not as searching in his questions. Mrs. 
 Coningham simply treated him as a toy 
 in her hands. The learned Q.C. 
 recognised it, and saw after the first 
 half-hour's cross-examination that he 
 had met a woman whose like he had 
 r.ever seen before. The judge was 
 impressed also. 
 
 The answers were couched in re- 
 spectful words, but they were short, 
 and not an extra syllable than was 
 riccessary was used. The sensation of 
 her e\\ fence was provided when her 
 husband asked her: "Who is the 
 father of your last child?" "Dr. 
 O'Haran," was the answer, told with 
 the same emotionless but convincing 
 voice. Mr. Want dropped his pen and 
 looked at her. Still not a muscle 
 moved . The J udge paused , and gravely 
 looking at her, said, with great delibera- 
 tion, " I solemnly ask you who is the 
 father of your last child?" "Dr. 
 O'Haran, Your Honor that man," 
 and a gloved finger pointed at the 
 Co-respondent, whose head was bowed. 
 Still not a muscle moved. The voice 
 did not change ; there was no tremor, 
 
 not the faintest trace of emotion. The 
 Judge took the answer, and Coningham 
 proceeded with his cross-examination. 
 Th :kla Duberke was a wonderful 
 witness, but there was a ring of abandon 
 about her. Nothing of the kind about 
 Mrs. Coningham. She spoke very 
 naturally, and never interpolated any 
 of her answers. Her style and manner 
 are indescribable. The writer for 
 nearly twenty-five years has been 
 accustomed to hearing witnesses in 
 Courts ; never did he hear such a one 
 as the subject of this sketch. Once 
 the audience thought they were to 
 witness some hysteria. " It was when 
 she described the second occasion of 
 alleged illicit love with Co-respondent. 
 " He showered me with kisses," she 
 said, " and told me he had a holy love 
 for me, and I found I loved him." The 
 audience was breathless, but no more 
 came. The talking Sphinx turned her 
 eyes to her husband in expectancy for 
 the next question. And yet she was a 
 woman. Marvellous ! 
 
 Mrs. Coningham cannot be described 
 as a handsome or pretty woman. Her 
 features are regular, her eyebrows well 
 arched, and- a good forehead shows 
 that she has an intellect. The lips are 
 not cruel or sensual. There is nothing 
 in her face to indicate the power of 
 this great mastery over feminine 
 emotion when appealed to so search- 
 ingly. She must have no nerves at all. 
 The strain on her must be very great, 
 for the first day after her evidence, 
 when she went out to her cab, a mob 
 of howling men and women hooted and 
 used all sorts of vile epithets to her. 
 The next day she calmly told the Judge 
 all about it, but never a trace of 
 emotion could be traced during the 
 recital of her story. The first day she 
 was dressed in black, but as the heat 
 was great on successive days, she 
 changed her dress, and wore light 
 coloured blouses and black skirts. It 
 must be said of this lady that without 
 recourse to theatrical effect or hysteria 
 she has created the greatest sensation 
 in the Law Courts of Sydney that has 
 ever been provided.
 
 126 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF OF THE RESPONDENT. 
 
 Coningham opened the ball. The fair self-alleged delinquent 
 kaevv the Co-respondent. Nobody was surprised at this naif 
 statement. It is extremely difficult to commit a series even of 
 fabricated improprieties without knowing your vis-a-vis. She first 
 became acquainted with the Doctor on the iyth March, 1897. Oi> 
 this occasion she was introduced to him by a lady who was living 
 with her, a Miss Sutherland, at the concert given on St. Patrick's 
 night, in the Town Hall of Sydney. After a few minutes conversa- 
 tion he gave her a small harp. [The harp, which by no means 
 suggested the musical instrument celebrated by Thomas Moore, as 
 having once in Tara's Halls awakened strange melodies, was here 
 produced.] The Doctor sent, or rather Mrs. Coningham saw, ft. 
 letter he had sent to Miss Sutherland inviting her (Mrs. Coning- 
 ham) specially ; but she had not this letter -it was the property of 
 Miss Sutherland. She did not go to St. Mary's to see Dr. 
 O'Haran after that night (i7th March, 1897) for more than twelve 
 months say, about April in the year following. Her husband 
 (" Conny ") went with her ; but the Doctor was not in. However, 
 she went again the same evening and saw the Doctor, and he 
 asked her to come again. Oh ! yes, she remembered all about 
 May, .1898, she then had a " big quarrel " with "Conny," who- 
 threatened her, and she. went and saw the Doctor. The Co- 
 respondent was told all about the quarrel, so Mrs. C\. gingham 
 averred, and he said, " Now you have shown your independence, 
 go to his mother, and if he says anything tell him the Church 
 made you do it." [Coningham's mother, witness alleged, was 
 ill at this time.J Oh ! yes, the Doctor " ordered" her to go, as a 
 spiritual adviser. Her visits to the Co-respondent continued 
 regularly after this. Did she remember the night of July 3rd r 
 1898? Did she not? On that night she and her sister, who had 
 an appointment with Dr. O'Haran, went to St. Mary's Cathedral. 
 When there she missed her sister ; but met the Doctor. Oh ! no, 
 she was not late for Church ; nevertheless, she did not remain for 
 the service. The Cathedral was too full, and he could not find a 
 seat for her he did not try ! She said that she told the Co- 
 tespondent that as she had missed her sister she would not wait, 
 and she was sick herself. The Doctor said to her "It is too- 
 crowded to go out that way. If you will wait a moment, I will get 
 Langton to show you out the back-way." In about two or three 
 minutes Langton came, and conducted her out by the corridor. 
 Then the Doctor said, "That will do, Langton; I will show the 
 lady out." The Co-respondent took her through the Boys' 
 Sacristy, down a flight of steps, through the Cardinal's Hall, and 
 down a small flight of steps. He put a key into the lock of a door. 
 Respondent asked where she was going, and the Doctor said he 
 was about to show her out by the side entrance. He opened the 
 door, and she stepped in, and saw she was on a floor. She asked
 
 
 ALICE STANFORD CONINGHAM, 
 
 THE RESPONDENT.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. I2~ 
 
 the Doctor what he meant, and he said "Don't make a noise!" 
 Mrs. Coningham said that she objected, and wanted to leave the 
 building. The Co-respondent said it was of no use. She did not 
 know where she was, but she knew that she was in the building 1 of 
 Sf. Mary's Cathedral. He then took the Respondent up some 
 stairs on to the stage, and into a little room. The Doctor asked 
 her to go to the end of the hall, said Mrs. Coningham, because 
 there was a seat and two chairs there. The stage was in a little 
 room, and the place was in complete darkness she could see 
 nothing. Oh ! yes, she sat down ! The Doctor did not sit down, 
 because there was nothing to sit upon. Here, said the dear Lady 
 Innocence, the carnal intimacy was initiated. There was no couch 
 in the room ; but there was a cot, or a little bed, out of which the 
 Co-respondent took something and placed it on the floor. After 
 remaining some three-quarters of an hour, Mrs. Coningham 
 returned to the bosom of her family and -the duties she owed her 
 children, while the Doctor went into the Cathedral. The witness 
 asseverated that she met Dr. O'Haran at about five minutes to 7 
 o'clock. He did not wear his surplice when with Respondeni. 
 She could not say that, after being three-quarters of an hour with 
 her, he was late for the procession ; he was certainly late for a 
 portion of the service. [The Petitioner, at this point, wanted to 
 know if, during the night of the 3rd July, the Co-respondent used 
 force. Mr. Want strongly objected. Let the witness tell her own 
 story. He (Counsel) did not like objecting to these things, but 
 they were leading questions. His Honor, however, did not agree 
 that the last question was a leading one, and the witness replied 
 in the affirmative.] The Respondent, continuing, said that she 
 was taken seriously ill a few days later. This illness lasted nine or 
 ten weeks. When she got up from her bed again she saw the 
 Doctor. It was on her birthday, the 2gth September. The Co- 
 respondent, she alleged, suggested impropriety on that date. In 
 answer to the Petitioner, " No, he used no expression" (in this 
 matter of suggestion) ; but they had a conversation. She told him 
 that it was her birthday, and he said that he would give her his 
 photograph She asked him for it, and he said that he would give 
 it to her on the Sunday following. Oh ! yes, he suggested some- 
 thing ! She told him that she was not well ; and he said, " Come 
 down on Sunday, and I will give you my photograph." That was 
 on the 2nd October, 1898. She went to the Cathedral on that 
 night. It was a processional night the first Sunday in the month. 
 She saw the Co-respondent in the building ; he did not then give 
 her his photograph. The Doctor asked her to go into the Cardinal's 
 Hall, and she did so. The place was not then in darkness there 
 was a light in the school-room. The witness went into the same 
 little room that she had gone into on the 3rd July, and something 
 similar took place. From the time the witness met the Co- 
 respondent on that occasion, to the time she left him, about twenty- 
 five minutes had elapsed. The Co-respondent gave her his photo- 
 
 J
 
 128 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 graph ; but she did not know who put his initials upon it. The 
 photograph was here handed to the witness : 
 
 Petitioner : Is that the photograph he gave you ? Yes. 
 
 Look in the right-hand corner. Who put that mark on it ? He told me he 
 did. He took the photograph out of his pocket. It was wrapped in brown 
 paper. 
 
 Continuing, witness stated that she went from the Cardinal's 
 Hall around to one of the upper doors to College Street. She did 
 not go into the Cathedral and sit down. She stood at the door and 
 watched the procession. She did not see her sister that night. 
 She saw the Doctor in the procession. After the procession the 
 witness went home. 
 
 The Petitioner asked witness if she met the Co-respondent on 
 the 23rd December, 1898. Mrs. Coningham did not know whether 
 it was on that date or on the date preceding. She went to Mel- 
 bourne, to see dear " Conny " play cricket. About the 22nd 
 December, 1898, she behaved improperly with the Co-respondent 
 at the Presbytery Office this office was used by him. It contained 
 two sofas, two or three writing-desks, a table, a couch, and some 
 chairs. The couch was a small one, with the end only turned up. 
 She could not remember whether it supported books. On some 
 days books were stacked upon it. Loose papers were strewn 
 upon it on the 22nd. The Doctor said that they were examination 
 papers. On that day the impropriety was committed in the office 
 of the Cardinal's Hall. The door had a patent fastening. It was 
 in the evening. The housekeeper had let her in at the door. She 
 had put the witness into the office, and left her there while she 
 went away to inform the Co-respondent that she (Mrs. Coningham) 
 was waiting. When the Doctor came in, he closed the door. He 
 asked witness to come again before she left for Melbourne. The 
 witness replied that she was going in a day or two, and would not 
 have time. When in Melbourne she wrote a letter to the Co- 
 respondent, but received no answer. She usually went to St. 
 Mary's Cathedral to see the Doctor on Friday nights. As a rule, 
 stated the witness, all the priests except Dr. O'Haran were in the 
 Confessional on Friday nights, and, therefore, the parties never 
 encountered anyone on those particular occasions. The priests 
 generally went into the Confessional at 7 o'clock. It was usually 
 quiet any night before a feast day. Mrs. Coningham stated that 
 Dr. O'Haran had once told her why she should visit St. Mary's 
 on a Friday night. Once or twice when she went to the Cathedral 
 on Saturdays he asked her why she did not come the previous night, 
 as he went to the Confessional on Saturday. 
 
 At this point the Petitioner diverged into a theological by-path 
 and questioned Mrs. Coningham about sin, the Confessional, and 
 the doctrine of Absolution. He made special reference to Dr. 
 O'Haran's own religious duties, and asked his witness leading 
 questions. Mr. Want objected with emphasis, and the Judge told
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 1 2g 
 
 the Respondent not to answer. The Petitioner then asked a 
 number of questions conveying vile insinuations. He desired to 
 know the nature of an expression alleged to have been used by Dr. 
 O'Haran on the night of the 3rd July ; but the witness refused to 
 answer. She refused likewise to write it down. Coningham began 
 a question worded, "Did he tell you that you were the only 
 
 woman he ever ." Justice Owen interrupted, saying that the 
 
 Petitioner must allow the witness to tell her own story Petitioner 
 must not put words into her mouth. The Respondent refused to 
 describe, either orally or in writing, an alleged action of the 
 Doctor's on the night referred to. His Honor again interrupted, 
 and pointed out that it was something that was said to have taken 
 place after the commission of the assumed misconduct, and had 
 nothing to do with the case. The Petitioner insisted that it was 
 attendant on it. "Well," said his Honor, "the witness has 
 refused to answer it." The Petitioner then asked another question, 
 which the witness also refused to answer. Coningham next wanted 
 to know whether his own name had been used by the Co- 
 respondent during any act of misconduct, and the witness replied 
 that it had ; she refused, nowever, to say whether such use of 
 Coningham's name had been made by the Doctor on the night of 
 July 3rd. The Co-respondent afterwards reiterated her objection. 
 The witness stated that the Co-respondent swore to her that she 
 was the first woman with whom he had been intimate. She once 
 saw him in the Presbytery wearing- only a long coat he always 
 wore a soutane. Mrs. Coningham said that on one occasion, when 
 she and Dr. O'Haran were looking through a number of Harms- 
 ivorttis Magazine^ of the year 1898, the Co-respondent, referring 
 to an article on tattooing, said he had on his body a tattoo-mark. 
 Another time he would tell her where it was; "but,"i.aid the 
 witness, it a tone of pique, " he never did." The Doctor, con- 
 tinued Mrs. Coningham, told her that he could not be her con- 
 fessor, and said if she came to the box he could not refuse. He 
 said that he would have to confess that he heard her confession, 
 and he would be reported to the Cardinal. He sent her, therefore, 
 to confess to the French Priest, and her sister and Miss Shiel went 
 with her. The Doctor told her to go ! 
 
 V/itness further stated that she gave Miss Shiel a letter to 
 ta~Ke to the Co-respondent. She went to confession in September 
 or at the beginning of October, 1899. At the beginning of April 
 in the same year she was in the upstairs schoolroom. It was 
 " sometime" during April, at the Fair of St. Canice. Misconduct 
 had taken place on that orcasion. Someone, she knew not whom, 
 tried the door while she was in the room with the Co-respondent. 
 She was there for half an hour. She had previously been with the 
 Co-respondent in the same room, whilst the Fair was going on. 
 The room was not in darkness ; as it was possible to see by the 
 little light that reached it from a street lamp While the parties 
 were there Kelly came into the room. They had to be very quiet,
 
 I3O THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 said the witness, the Doctor was afraid of Kelly. [The lady, from* 
 her own showing, would appear to be afraid of nothing".] She 
 remarked to the Doctor, at least she said she did, " It does not 
 matter about Kelly." The Co-respondent, according to Mrs. 
 Coningham, said that it did matter, as Kelly was the only one who 
 suspected them. Witness confessed to a repetition of anti-marital 
 sin on that night. She remembered March 3rd, 1899. She was 
 with her sister on that night. Between 8 and 9 o'clock she went, 
 still with her sister, to St. Mary's Cathedral, but she did not remain- 
 in the Church. She sent Langton to inform the Doctor that she 
 was there ; but the Co-respondent was with a young Irish gentle- 
 man who had come off from one of the boats, and whose name the 
 witness had forgotten. She left her sister and went into the 
 fernery, the door of which was open. Mrs. Coningham s~aid that 
 she met the Doctor there, and the impropriety was repeated. 
 Leaving the fernery, she went into the Church with the Co- 
 respondent in view of her sister, who said that she had been a long 
 time away. The Respondent said that she had not been with the 
 Doctor all the time ; and the Respondent testifies that the Doctor 
 said, on the same occasion, that he had been telling her sister, 
 Mrs. Bostock, that if her husband (Arthur Coningham) was going 
 home with the cricketing team " we will put her and the children 
 into the convent." Mrs. Bostock refused to go again to the 
 Cathedral with her delectable sister : at least, so reported the lady 
 of many devices and much evidence too accurate in detail to be 
 believed. On the lyth of March, 1899, the Respondent went to 
 Mass with her little boy Artie ; and she avers that the Doctor shook 
 hands with Artie, though to her he did not speak. After leaving 
 St. Mary's, she went home and telephoned to Dr. O'Haran that 
 she could not attend the concert that ni^ht the Doctor having 
 said that he would see her at the concert at the Town Hall. Mrs. 
 Coningham told him that she had tickets for the "Geisha," and 
 that she could meet him at the Presbytery before she went. It 
 was arranged that the two should meet in the lane between the 
 Cardinal's Hall and the Cathedral. Witness reached that part of 
 the grounds from the College-streetentrance. When she lefthome that 
 night Mrs. Coningham said that she went direct to St. Mary's in a 
 cab. A dressmaker had sent an apprentice to her to ascertain 
 whether she were satisfied with some gowns, and when the girl 
 was returning to her employer the witness told her to send a cab 
 to the house. The Respondent visited the Cathedral, to walk 
 straSg-ht to the alleged trysting-place. She was in evening-dress 
 a moss-green velvet. After waiting two or three minutes Dr. 
 O'Haran came straight from the Presbytery up the lane. Some- 
 thing happened in the Hall. The Respondent afterwards crossed 
 Hyde Park, and met someone at the corner of Market and 
 Elizabeth Streets. 
 
 Mr. Want objected to this evidence. The matter could have 
 nothing to do with the alleged charge against Dr. O'Haran. The
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 13! 
 
 Petitioner said that he wished to trace her actions on the night Li 
 question ; but the Judge held that the questions were not relevant 
 to the case, which was already long enough and he would not 
 allow them. 
 
 Continuing, Mrs. Coningham deposed that she attended a 
 performance of the " Geisha." On the same night the Co-respon- 
 dent presented her with a harp, enclosed in a Cadbury's chocolate 
 box. Witness said to him, " What is the pin doing in the back 
 of it ? These are usually pins that the nuns use for their veils. 
 Did a nun give it to you ?" The Doctor said " Yes." Witness 
 stated that she made a jocular remark to the effect that the nun 
 would be annoyed if she knew that he had given the harp to her 
 (Respondent). In the month of May of the same year, the witness 
 said she had seen the Doctor often. She saw him on April 30th, 
 a Sunday [of course] at the Presbytery. She had gone to St. 
 Mary's, on this occasion, in a cab, and remained there about an 
 hour. Misconduct repeated ? Of course it was, averred the Lady 
 of Snow. Witness was not sure, but she thought it was the 
 afternoon. [This is somewhat singular. As a rule, the witness was 
 very sure, and seldom thought. Indeed, had she thought more, she 
 might, possibly, not have been so sure. She was very positive, 
 and very inaccurate, concerning the number of those disputatious 
 steps.] Mrs. Coningham averred that she saw the Co-respondent 
 for a little while on the ist April. She thought that the same 
 cabman drove her to the Cathedral on that occasion Witness had 
 sent the Co-respondent an empty envelope and a clean sheet of 
 paper because it was April ist, and she told him she was sorry she 
 had done so. Nothing took place on that date. During May she 
 was in the Sacristy inside the Cathedral. There are two Sacristies, 
 and she had been with the Co-respondent in both of them. 
 Nothing happened in the boys' Sacristy. There is a place where 
 they keep the vestments, and a place where one can write. When 
 witness went there an altar was in it, because the priests often 
 said prayers there. It contained also a strip of carpet, a model of 
 the high altar, and something like a table which would serve as a 
 writing-desk or a stand whereon incense could be put. Yes, she 
 could fix the first week in May. She had a conversation with the 
 Doctor in that room, and she alleged that she then told him that 
 she was with child, for whose paternity he was responsible. 
 Witness further stated that the Co-respondent did not make any 
 remark for a little while. She said " You seem to doubt it !" He 
 answered, " No, it is too good to doubt. I don't doubt it for one 
 moment/' Misconduct took place on that occasion. On another 
 day in the same moath it was repeated. [The Respondent remem- 
 bered *he agth June, 1898 it was a Wednesday, at least she 
 thought it was a Wednesday. It rained the night before the 
 *iight for which the appointment was made. She did not keep the 
 appointment ; but went down the next day. She had told his 
 .Honor at the last trial that it had rained the night before. 5he
 
 132 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 had thought a great deal over this date since then. She was sure 
 that it rained on the night of the appointment, and telephoned to 
 the Doctor the next day, " You did not expect me to attend the 
 meeting?" The witness averred that she did not say appointment. 
 Co-respondent asked, "Where are you going?" She replied, 
 " To Newtown." He said, " I want you to come down, I want to 
 see you for a little time first." It was very quiet in the Presbvtery 
 that night. During the last trial she had sworn conditionally that 
 it was on a Wednesday. 
 
 The Petitioner said, at this point, " You state now that the 
 night before you went down it rained heavily. Well, you look at 
 this chart. Coningham then tendered a weather-chart, which he 
 said had been obtained at the Sydney Observatory. Mr. Want 
 objected to its production, declaring that it was not evidence. 
 
 The Respondent, in answer to a question by the Petitioner, 
 remembered the whole of that week very well. She met the Co- 
 respondent during that week. She was unable to fix the 2gth 
 June. She would not positively swear it was a Wednesday ; but 
 she went down during the week. fHis Honor here asked the 
 Respondent if she could fix the date, and she answered, " Yes ; I 
 will swear now it was July i, and not June 29."] On that night, 
 continued the witness, she called at the Presbytery, and the Doctor 
 went to her in the waiting-room and invited her into the office. 
 After she had been there some time he lowered the incandescent 
 light. He then went to the chair upon which she was sitting. 
 She requested him to turn the light up, and he replied, "Wait a 
 moment." What the witness was now stating was exactly what 
 she had sworn to (during the previous trial) as having taken place 
 on the 29th June. After a moment or two the Co-respondent 
 turned the light up. Before he did so, witness stated, she threat- 
 ened to make a noise. The doctor said he would turn up the light 
 if she would promise to come to the Cathedral again ; he was sorry 
 he had lowered it ; but did it only to try her. She left him at the 
 gate that night, nothing improper having taken place. She promised 
 to go to St. Mary's on the Sunday following. The Respondent 
 remembered taking her child to the Cathedral to be baptised. 
 She asked the Doctor to baptise it. She thought that it was the day 
 upon which she came from Fairfield - in January. The Co-respon- 
 dent said that he could not baptise the child, because he admitted 
 paternity. The baptism was performed by Father O'Gorman. 
 After the baptism the witness sent a message to the Co-respondent 
 by Patrick Langton, asking the Doctor to come and look at the 
 baby. [The Petitioner wished to know if the Respondent received 
 any answer to her message ; and Mr. Want objected to such a 
 question.] No ! The Doctor did not say that the baby was like 
 himself. She asked him if he were cross when a baby, because this 
 one was very cross. The Doctor made no answer. It was Miss Shiel 
 who accompanied her to the Presbytery, where they saw a little 
 boy he was in Court during the last trial. The Co-respondent
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 133 
 
 came, in answer to her message, and looked at the child. She 
 asked him to take the baby, but he did not do so, although the 
 witness offered it to him. The Doctor laughed at it, and said 
 that it was a fat little thing and that was all ! She had not 
 received a message from anyone saying, " Don't be carrying on 
 with any nonsense, and that they had no time to come down to see 
 the baby," When the witness left the Doctor she went back to 
 St. Mary's. She thought that he went upstairs. Co-respondent 
 told the witness that he had to hurry to Manly, where the Cardinal 
 was entertaining at dinner. The date of the baptism was entered 
 at St. Mary's, and could be found out. Yes, between the dates 
 mentioned by the Petitioner the witness had visited the Co-respond- 
 ent. The witness cheerfully admitted, in reply to Petitioner, 
 having indulged in various acts of misconduct on dates other than 
 those specified ; but she had never been in the Cathedra' tower 
 with the Doctor. The witness said further that the Co-respondent 
 never made any remarks to her in connection with his Church and 
 herself after they had misconducted themselves. 
 
 
 
 (Z&C 
 
 ^ 
 
 (Written Instruction from Coningliam to his Bodyguard.) 
 The Petitioner then diverted the witness's attention to Fairfield 
 happenings. Did the Respondent remember when he went to 
 Brisbane in 1890? She did, and remembered also when he 
 returned. She made a verbal confession to Coningham on the 
 latter occasion ; but she did not give him any details. Oh, yes, 
 she remembered the written confession. " Did you write that ?" 
 asked the Petitioner. Yes, she had written it. [Here Coningham 
 handed her a document for inspection.] "Is there any difference 
 in that confession now and when you wrote it?" asked the 
 Petitioner. " It is exactly as I wrote it," replied the Respondent. 
 Now there were in existence two confessions. One of the 
 24th May, and one of the i3th June. They are here printed side 
 by side, and it is interesting to note the excision of a certain
 
 134 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 passage, which happened subsequent to the visit of Mrs Gorman, 
 ex-mid v\ife, from Brisbane. 
 
 THE TWO CONFESSIONS. 
 
 The Confession of the 24th May : 
 " Dear Husband, In our last inter- 
 view you promised if I made a full con- 
 fession to you, you would not go to 
 extremes if I told you all the truth, I 
 told you the truth but not all. I will 
 now tell you and rely on your mercy. 
 On the night of the 3rd July, first Sun- 
 day in the month, 1899, I went to the 
 Cathedral Being latel couldn't get a 
 seat Then Dr. O'Haran tried to find 
 one for me I was toe ill tc remain in, 
 and started tc leave the Cathedral. 
 He said to me, " Don't go through the 
 Church, come this way." Langton 
 saw me to the door facing the Presby- 
 tery, when Dr. O'Haran said tc him, 
 " That will do, I will see her out." 
 Instead of doing so, he took me to the 
 Cardinal's Hall, and there told me how 
 he loved me, and the affection he had 
 for me. I was ill, and alone, and very 
 frightened He used his influence over 
 me, and I being very fond of him, he 
 succeeded in his object. I was afraid 
 to tell you, as I knew you would kill 
 him. As for myself, I did not care 
 what happened "We continued our 
 wickedness after my illness in October 
 intheCardinals Hall, in Dr.O'Haran's 
 cffice, waiting-room, and Cardinal's 
 room. You have always shown your 
 antipathy towards my baby, and the 
 truth is he (Dr. O'Haran) is the father 
 of it, of which he is fully aware. He 
 refused to baptise it on that account. 
 We both know how deeply we have 
 wronged you , and / swear to you that no 
 oilier man but Dr. O'Haran and yonrsdj 
 ever had intercourse tvith me. As 3'ou 
 surmised there are others who know of 
 our intimacy. If you only knew 
 the agony of conscience I have suffered 
 ] am sure you would be lenient with 
 me. Don't take my children from me. 
 J will with God's help lead a pure life 
 irom this out, and work for my chil- 
 dren. Do let me know the worst. 
 This suspense is awful. 1 pray your 
 forgiveness. I can now see the differ- 
 ence between that pure affection you 
 always showed me and the other selfish 
 love. I have never known a day's 
 happiness since we committed cur sin, 
 and never will again. Asking you to 
 be merciful to me, I remain, your 
 affectionate wile, A COMNGHAM." 
 
 The Confession of the I3th June : 
 " Fairfield, June 13, 1900. My dear 
 Husband, At our last interview, you 
 said you could not forgive, as you felt 
 I was not telling you all the truth. I 
 did tell you the truth, but not all. I 
 will do so now, and hope you will be 
 merciful, and beg you not to go to ex- 
 tremes. My first act of adultery with 
 Dr. O'Haran took place on July 3, 
 1898, the first Sunday of the month, 
 in the Cardinal's Hall, and on other 
 occasions in the hall, at St. Mary's 
 Presbytery- the office. I am so sorry, 
 but can only plead my affection for 
 him at the time. You have always 
 been different to little Vincent, and 
 this is the truth I kept back at our 
 other interview. Dr. O'Haran is 
 Vincent's father. He knows all about 
 it. He is called Francis after him, 
 and that is the reason why the Doctor 
 would not baptise him. I will try and 
 work tor him, only don't take my other 
 children from me. It you only knew 
 what agony of conscience I have 
 suffered at times you would be lenient 
 when I think of your pure affection 
 and love for me, compared with that 
 other selfish love. Believe me, I never 
 kept the first appointment with him for 
 gratification. I was ill and alone, and 
 the Doctor offered to show me a short 
 way out ; instead of out he took me in 
 the hall, through the lane, and then 
 told me his affection. I was afraid at 
 first but, caring for him, the rest soon 
 followed; and then it continued. We 
 both know how deeply we have injured 
 you; but I have alwajs been afraid 
 you would kill him. For myself, I 
 care not what happens. Two people 
 know of my visits there, and suspect 
 the truth. During our seven years of 
 married life I have never been unfaith- 
 ful with any other before or since ; 
 only Dr. O'Haran, who took all my 
 affection for you away. Do, Conny, 
 let me know the end soon. This torture 
 is too intense to last long, and do for- 
 give me. I will never wrong you 
 again. WiLh God's help I will beas good 
 as of old, and fight down even the 
 thought of him who wrecked my home 
 and your happiness.- Your miserable 
 wife. ALICE CONINGHAM."
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 135 
 
 But harking 1 back to the Respondent's examination by the Peti- 
 tioner : Mrs. Coningham declared that the date, "July 3," had not 
 been altered in any way. There was a hair in the pen when she 
 had written it. The Petitioner then showed the witness portion of 
 a document, saying as he did so, "Is that your hand-writing?" 
 The witness "thought" it was. The Petitioner then dramatically 
 opened the document and allowed the witness to see the whole of 
 it, again asking if she had written it. The witness emphatically 
 denied the hand-writing "No, she never wrote it !" Mrs. Con- 
 ing-ham was handed the document ; she read it, and said that she 
 did not understand it. His Honor here interposed, saying that 
 what the witness stated was that the words " My dear husband" 
 were, she thought, in her hand-writing, but when the remaining 
 portion of the letter was shown to her she said that it was not in 
 her hand-writing. Coningham wanted the document put in ; but 
 his Honor said that the only evidence in it was that the woman 
 knew nothing about it. Mr. Want here broke in, saying that he 
 was just going to point this out. He thought, nevertheless, that 
 the document ought to be impounded. His Honor said he would 
 have it marked for identification. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham, continuing her evidence, said that all the 
 children had lately been ill, and that Mabel was very bad then 
 (March 12th). 
 
 A SICK AND UNHEALTHY FAMILY. 
 
 The Coninghams, p6re etmdre etles petits enfants, seem to have 
 been a singularly unhealthy tribe. It is both amusing and interest- 
 ing- to turn to the Shiel correspondence. The sole topics of dis- 
 course are sickness and money, the need of the latter being, of 
 course, brought about by the continuous insistence of the former. 
 Miss Shiel played the part of benevolent fairy, and generously aded 
 as unsalaried banker to the interesting lady, and her mother, and 
 all her other relations. By the way, the first and last letters put 
 in from the beauteous Respondent turned on the necessity of having 
 and holding plenty of sordid cash. Mrs. Coningham was one of 
 those who " must have money." Here are some family health and 
 financial bulletins culled from the Respondent's letters to Miss 
 Shiel : 
 
 " Douglasdale, G. P. Road, October 3ist, '99. 
 
 Dear Miss Shiel . . . my sister has been ill ... really I am any- 
 thing but well .... I trust you are well, and that your ' lecture' proved 
 successful from a mercenary point of view." 
 
 " Burrilda, Wetherill Park, nr. Fairfield, 29/12/99. 
 
 " Dear Miss Shiel .... Poor mother, she broke down at the station. 
 When I got home to-day little Artie was so ill with dysentry." 
 
 " 'Burrilda,' n/i/oo. 
 
 " My Dear Miss Shiel Well, after writing, Vincent got mud 
 
 worse, and at last I had to drive to Parramatta and see the Dr., and thanks tc 
 your money, I was able to get all he ordered, and it really saved his life, as he 
 had pneumonia."
 
 i 3 6 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE.
 
 1HK SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 137
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 *39 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 ' / .'// Money" Letter, written by Mrs. Coningham to Coningham, during the 
 progress of the First Trial.]
 
 3:40 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 " Wetherill Park, 21/1/00. 
 
 "Dear Miss Shiel, Forgive me not writing sooner to thank you for what 
 you gave mother, and to say I could not possibly expect you to do more for me. 
 at least not until I can see my way to pay you back again. I left Sydney without 
 speaking to Conny, and altogether am most miserable. I feel inclined to give up 
 hoping for a change, all is so black. . . . Now I really don't know what to 
 do. Conny tells Mrs. Miller he would pay her monthly ; well, the month is up, 
 .and now he sends her a post-dated cheque for three weeks time. Of course there 
 is a bother, and goodness knows where he intends to be when that falls due. I 
 dare not tell the woman I believe he cannot pay her, as I would only for the 
 children, as she would make me leave at once, and I have no place to go, so I 
 must hold my tongue, and possibly see her cheated. I hate the whole thing, and 
 wonder how it will end. . . Mabel is not so well." 
 
 "Wetherill Park, 15/2/900. 
 
 " My dear Miss Shiel, . . . I do so want to come to Sydney and live, but 
 dare not think of it till I am able to pay here. I have not received a penny from 
 Conny yet, it is all owing, he gave the people a cheque here which has been 
 dishonoured (but don't mention it) it is too bad, I wonder the people do not turn 
 us out. ... I am much better. . . . You have always been so kind, 
 and your generosity will not be forgotten when I am in a position to remember 
 it which I hope will be soon." 
 
 " ' Burrilda', 17/3/900. 
 
 "Dear Miss Shiel, . . . poor Conny was nearly choked to death in 
 'Brisbane last week. It seems he has an awful cold and \rhile coughing a piece 
 of undigested food came up cross-wise across his throat and he could not 
 shout or dislodge it. He fainted and lay unconscious for four hours, when he 
 recovered his senses he was surrounded with people, a Dr. had been summoned 
 who ordered his removal to the hospital, where he was delirious all night and ill 
 for a week. It was the closest he has ever had, and it was considered wonderful 
 how he could remain so long without actually dying, he says his face was quite 
 black for some hours. I was very shocked to hear it ... baby took ill and 
 I remained in Sydney." 
 
 " 'Burrilda,' Wetherill Park, 24/4/900 
 
 "'My Dear Miss Shiel ... I witnessed thebushmen yesterday from St. 
 Mary's tower and caught a terrible cold in my throat no voice to-night." 
 
 " Wetherill Park, nr Fairfield, 7/1/00. 
 
 " Dear Miss Shiel ... I have had an awful time, we sent Artie to 
 -Sydney, he was so ill, then last Friday Mabel fell from a height on stone steps 
 and injured her head, just escaped concussion, but was ill two days from shock, 
 I was the worst, the fright made me very ill. The milk left me for two days, 
 during which time I gave Vincent the bottle, then when I was able to give him 
 the breast it made him so bad, he is ill poor little fellow, I am afraid I shall have 
 to bring him to the doctor at Sydney. ... I feel a wreck but will soon be 
 alright when my baby is better." 
 
 " ' Burrilda,' Wetherill Park. 10/7/00. 
 
 " Dear Miss Shiel, ... I never seem to be well now ... I saw 
 my mother for the first time for some weeks, and in telling me what you said 
 about me she admitted she had been to see you about money again. Now to teM 
 the truth I was shocked beyond words, and can assure you such a thing will 
 never happen again, it is disgraceful how they seem to think you can help them, 
 I did abuse her for it, and can tell you, as I told her, if she had a palace I would 
 no more live with her than with my sister. My husband will have to keep me 
 always, and whats more, work for it, so please don't think I had even a 
 knowledge of it, or she would never have bothered you. It upset me fearfully. 
 Vincent is such a good baby, and a big one, too, only not well to-day, the 
 weather is against him so."
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 Sometimes the male person took a hand in the Coningham 
 -epistles to Miss Shiel. Here are extracts from two whining, 
 hypocritical effusions : 
 
 
 >2X ^P
 
 THE COMNGHAM CASE.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL.
 
 144 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 
 -S&.JL0 
 
 sample letter from Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shicl.]
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 I_j.ij 
 
 <?9 
 
 /-^ -t-<->C 
 
 Q/ 
 
 **~~>*-^ C^A
 
 146 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 3E$?tej& 
 ^^JZ 
 
 4ft^^>V 
 
 MTp 
 
 [Coningham to Miss Shiel, announcing little Vincent's birth.'}.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 147 
 
 365 Glebe Road, 10/11/99. months. I love my wife and babies 
 
 -Dear Miss Shiel.-My dear wife verv dearlv ' and am willing to do any 
 
 asked me to drop you a note to say kmd of , w ? rk to hel P them lf J can onl y 
 
 that a fine babv bov made its appear- succeed in getting it. However I 
 
 ance at 4.40 this morning and thank mu . s r t h P e for . the bes * al though it looT^s 
 
 God they are both doing splendidly. " ?? lf we f 8 n Sf to have a very black 
 
 Xmas. I wonder Miss Shiel if I spoke 
 
 13/11/99. G.P.O., Sydney. to Dr . Q'Haran would he put in a word 
 
 "Dear Miss Shiel, . . . Poor for me at Toohey's Brewery, I may get 
 
 girl" (the Respondent) "she is so something to do there. DC you think 
 
 worried. I will not tell you what we he would be annoyed at me asking 
 
 have gone through the last week, it is him? I would not like to offend him 
 
 too awful. I am trying my utmost to on account of my dear wife, she may 
 
 get something to do and with the help not like it. Excuse me telling you all 
 
 of the Lord I hope to succeed shortly. my troubles Miss Shiel as you have 
 
 She is such a brave -noble woman to had quite enough of your own lately 
 
 put up with it all without giving way. and trusting you will be quite recovered 
 
 1 suppose I am a lot to blame for it, by the time this reaches you, I beg to 
 
 but God knows I have tried my utmost remain yours respectfully, ARTHUR 
 
 to obtain employment for the last two CONINGHAM, G.P.O., Sydney. 
 
 After this somewhat lengthy excursion into the realms of 
 domestic correspondence penned by these eleemosynary folk, the 
 record must try back to the more prosaic details of the Case. 
 
 Coningham wanted to know if, since the last trial, he had 
 visited her at the place where she resided, or had engaged in 
 conversation with her. The Respondent said that he had been to 
 the house simply to see the children. She had never been alone 
 with him; nor had she ever had a conversation with him which 
 was in any way connected with this Case. Mrs. Coningham then 
 stated that the Petitioner had, since the first hearing of the Case, 
 called for "Artie" two or three times during the Commonwealth 
 week, and she objected to dressing the boy so often. He 
 (Coningham) had called at the house, on an average, about once 
 a fortnight ; but she had not seen him every time he called. Oh ! 
 yes, she knew a man named Miller, who lived at Fairfield. She 
 was staying lately at his house, accompanied by her three children. 
 She had arranged with Mr. Miller to lodge at his place. She had 
 not the faintest idea that Coningham had made any arrangement ; 
 though she thought that her mother had. The \vi|*css had seen 
 him (the Petitioner) at Fairfield ; he had come iqjfrori a Sunday ; 
 but he held no conversation with her ; never, in fact, spoke to her. 
 When the Petitioner came into dinner the meal was nearly over. 
 Just as he sat down at the table she, having finished, rose and left. 
 He could not have sat next to her, because that place was occupied 
 by her little girl (Mabel), and the child was still seated at the table 
 when the witness went away. As far as she knew, Coningham had 
 never been in her bedroom during his visit. She did not know 
 that he had any intention of going to Fairfield until she saw him 
 there. The Respondent stayed at Miller's house for eight days. 
 On one occasion, it was night time, she was taken very ill, at 
 about 10 o'clock. The whole of the next day she was absolutely 
 unable to stand, and had to seek the support of a lounge, on which
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE.
 
 T.IE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 149 
 
 / 
 
 -L*- 
 
 \j*oa*S*~-t >t- 
 
 /^^a^t^-^^o v /2-^^ d ' 
 
 's L^fr to Miller.']
 
 150 Till: CONIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 she lay, on the balcony, until 9 o'clock that evening 1 . Throughout 
 the previous night she had been in a state of unconsciousness. 
 She did not know the cause of her comatose condition, but 
 imagined, or believed, that she wa.> either drugged or poisoned. 
 [Mr. Want laughed incredulously and derisively.] 
 
 The Petitioner, with great indignation and expostulative 
 warmth, said that he objected to the Senior Counsel laughing at 
 these things. Mr. Want declared, somewhat unconvincingly, that 
 he was not laughing at rvhat was said by the witness. Ccningham 
 asserted that Mr. Want most certainly laughed at the Respondent's 
 evidence, and appealed to his Honor for the visitation of dire 
 judicial wrath on the offending Counsel's head. It was unfair of 
 Mr. Want to laugh at him ; he did not wish his witnesses to be 
 insulted by the legal lights of the other side. Mr. Want insisted 
 that he did not in any way insult Coningham's witnesses. Mr. 
 Justice Owen here interposed, and said that he could not allow the 
 matter to go any further. The Petitioner said that it was unfair 
 for anyone to laugh and "snigger." He said, turning to the 
 Judge, that next time such a thing happened he would appeal to 
 his Honor and not to Counsel. Mr. Want then explained that he 
 had laughed at a remark made to him by Mr. Slattery, and not at 
 the Petitioner's question or the Respondent's answer. 
 
 Coningham then asked the witness if she could state exactly 
 what came over her that night. Mr. Want demanded to know 
 what the Court had to do with this. If there was any suggestion 
 that Mr. Miller drugged the lady, he did not know what it had to 
 do with the Case. If he, Miller, says that Mrs. Coningham was 
 drugged at the instigation of Counsel's side, he would withdraw 
 any objection. The Petitioner, in emphatic accents, said that he 
 accused the opposite side of drugging the Respondent of very 
 nearly poisoning her, and Mr. Want then withdrew his objection. 
 Coningham asked the witness upon what particular night she was 
 drugged. The Respondent replied that Mr. Miller went down to 
 a wine-shop and bought a bottle of wine. On opening it he asked 
 her to have a glass. She said that she did not care for wine. 
 With her in the room at that time were, besides Mr. Miller, Mr. 
 Gallagher, Miss Ashe, Mrs. Lewis, and Mrs. Marquet (the house- 
 keeper). However, in reply to further questioning by the Peti- 
 tioner, the witness said that she felt that her host would consider 
 it rude of her if she refused to drink with the company, so she took 
 a small custard-glass of wine. About a quarter of an hour after- 
 wards the housekeeper left the dining-room to cut sandwiches. 
 The others went out on divers matters bent, and left the witness 
 and her host by themselves. Mrs. Coningham said that she de- 
 clined a sandwich, and went to the pantry to ask the housekeeper 
 to cut her a piece of bread-and-butter. She left her custard-glass 
 half-filled with wine. Returning from the pantry with the needed 
 bread-and-butter, she noted that her glass had been replenished,
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL.
 
 $52 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 and she asked who had done this. Mr. Miller replied, "You can. 
 take that drop, as you are going to bed immediately." During the 
 half-hour that followed she drank off the wine and ate the bread-and- 
 butter. The rest of the guests then returned to the dining-room, 
 eating sandwiches. Without the warning of a single moment the 
 witness fell back against a chair. The housekeeper and another 
 rushed forward to catch her. She remembered nothing more until 
 next morning. She said to Mr. Miller, " I told you it was bad 
 wine. It was too cheap. It was a shilling a bottle !" About 7 
 o'clock the following morning the housekeeper came into her bed- 
 room with a cup of tea, and said 
 
 Mr. Want here objected to the witness repeating the house- 
 keeper's conversation. 
 
 Petitioner : What do you really think night ? No ; I only know what was 
 
 happened to you ? told the next day by my little boy. 
 
 Mr. Want (to the witness) : I object 
 
 to your stating what you think hap- n^SP" I d n * SU P Se 1 C n 
 
 pened to you. ? al1 , th( l llttle ^ J our Honor ? H& 
 
 Petitioner: Do you know of any- is only five years old. 
 
 thing peculiar happening there that His Honor : Certainly not. 
 
 The Petitioner now diverged into a line of examination con- 
 cerning witness's personal knowledge of visitors to Fairfield, to 
 which Mr. Want emphatically objected. The Petitioner said that 
 he wanted to get at the history of these letters, which he knew to 
 be forgeries. Mr. Want said that this was a matter for the Jury 
 to decide. Mr. Justice Owen remarked that the evidence seemed 
 to deal with only a side issue. He could not see what the drugging 
 had to do with the Case. If such a thing had occurred, it was a 
 case for the Criminal Court. The Petitioner insisted that he wanted 
 to " get it out here." His Honor wanted to know what it had to do- 
 with the Respondent or the Co-respondent. The Petitioner pressed 
 for the admission of this evidence. He wanted to prove that the 
 Respondent was drugged ; he wished to get at the seat of that 
 from another channel from the Co-respondent right up. He would 
 endeavour to prove that the Respondent was drugged, and that 
 the letters were forgeries. His Honor wished to know the object 
 of the drugging. Would it facilitate forgery ? He could not under- 
 stand what the Petitioner was driving at. The Petitioner said that 
 Mr. Want had insinuated in the morning that Mrs. Coningham had 
 received the letters the opposing side had possession of. He (Peti- 
 tioner) desired to prove that she never had them. The Judge asked 
 if the Petitioner meant to say that the Co-respondent or his agents 
 got the witness drugged for the purpose of getting the papers from 
 her? The Petitioner said not so ; but the Respondent had been 
 drugged so that her boxes might be gone through in order to dis- 
 cover if there were any papers. He wanted to know how they 
 found out that certain telegrams had been sent, and how registered 
 letters had been mailed through the post. The Petitioner had a 
 very shrewd idea of how the job had been worked. His Honor
 
 THE SECON'D TRIAL. 
 
 '53 
 
 still refused to see what this had to do with drugging" the witness. 
 The Petitioner, very excitedly, declaimed that Mr. Want had said 
 it was a conspiracy, and he had heard him say at the table that 
 day that the Case would be over by 4 o'clock. (This statement 
 was greeted with laughter). Mr. Want said that this was not cor- 
 rect ; although he admitted having said to a gentleman that when 
 he had done cross-examining him he would not go on with the 
 Case. 
 
 Petitioner . And I am still here. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr. Want : I am rather astonished 
 he has gone on with it. (Laughter). 
 
 His Honor : I will not stop this line 
 of examination at present. I will let 
 the Petitioner go on to see if you can 
 throw any daylight on the point. 
 
 Mr. Want : Willyour Honor tell the 
 Petitioner and Respondent not to have 
 any communication with each other 
 whilst the Court is not sitting ? 
 
 His Honor : There should be no- 
 communication between them. 
 
 Petitioner : My little girl is ill. I 
 don't mind taking an Officer of the 
 Court with me, so as to let me see my 
 children. 
 
 His Honor : I have no objection to 
 you seeing your children, but > oun.-jst 
 have no communication with the u it- 
 ness. 
 
 Petitioner : I will not, your Honor. 
 
 [The Court then adjourned until the following day.] 
 
 On the third day of the Trial (March I3th) the evidence of the 
 Respondent was continued : 
 
 Petitioner, turning to the Respondent: 
 Was I at your place last night? I 
 heard you were. 
 
 What happened when I arrived 
 there ? I heard you say to Mr. Con- 
 nachie, at the door, that you came to 
 see : libel. 
 
 Where did you go ? I didn't go 
 anywhere. I was in the dining-room. 
 Did you see me at all ? No. 
 Or speak to me ? No. 
 Did the child tell you I was there ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Coming back to Miller's Did you 
 go there under the name of Mrs. 
 Arnold? I didn't go there under the 
 name of Arnold, but I put that name 
 on my box when I was going up. They 
 knew my name. 
 
 For what reason did you do it ? 
 Mr. Want objected. 
 Petitioner : Did you take the name 
 of Arnold v.hen you were up there? 
 No. 
 
 They didn't know you as Mrs. 
 Arnold ? No. 
 
 Did you receive telegrams, post- 
 carJs, or papers up there addressed, 
 Mrs. V. Arnold ?" Yes. 
 
 His Honor : What did you receive ? 
 1 received one letter and one post- 
 card. 
 
 Petitioner asked to be allo ved to see 
 the letters, and Mr. Want objected to 
 the Respondent seeing them. 
 
 Petitioner : Are they in evidence, 
 your Honor. 
 
 His Honor : No ; they are not. They 
 have only been marked for identifica- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Want said he had a strong 
 reason for the witness not seeing them. 
 The Petitioner could not show them io 
 the witness, nor could he divulge the 
 contents of them, and, therefore. Coun- 
 sel failed to see what use thev were 
 to him. The contents of a document 
 which was shown for identificatir n 
 were solely the property of Counsel. 
 He was, however, quite content that 
 the Petitioner should draw the atten- 
 tion of the Jury to them at this stage. 
 
 His Honor, addressing Counsel : You 
 have a perfect right to do that, as far 
 as the witness is concerned. As iar ?.; 
 the Petitioner is concerned, he is en- 
 titled to see the documents. 
 
 Turning to the Petitioner: 
 cannot show them to the VM.,, ' 
 read amthing from them, until 
 are in evidence. 
 
 Petitioner: Can I, in t-\-n--' 
 witness in reply, deal with them, 
 Honor ? 
 
 You 
 
 , <r
 
 154 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE.
 
 THK SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 J> 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 &C 
 
 [Another " Mabel' Note. T/; "Burwah" letter-card^
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mr. Want said that he had no 
 objection. 
 
 The Respondent went on to say that 
 : she received the letter and post-card 
 from Mr. Miller, who said that he had 
 got them from the post-ofiice. One, 
 witness believed, was registered. Her 
 Jittle boy brought them to her from 
 Mr. Miller into her room. She found 
 that the letter-card had lately been 
 opened. Witness did not sign for the 
 registered letter she didn't know who 
 signed for it. Mr. Miller used to sign 
 for letters at the post-office. 
 
 Petitioner : Can you explain what 
 was in that registered letter ? I don't 
 remember all that was in it it was 
 stolen from me that night. 
 
 What was enclosed in it ? Three 
 one pound notes. 
 
 How was it signed ? Can you re- 
 member? Yes. I can remember. It 
 was " Mabel." I couldn't understand 
 it. 
 
 Do you know where they came from ? 
 No ; I thought it was a joke. I told 
 them all so. 
 
 Whose writing was it? I thought 
 it was like yours, and yet I thought it 
 was not yours. 
 
 What did you do with those letters ? 
 I put them on a chest of drawers. 
 
 Was Miller, besides the boy, the 
 -only one who knew of your receiving 
 those letters ? Yes ; except the post- 
 mistress. 
 
 What became of them ? They were 
 on the chest of drawers the night I 
 received them. I didn't even finish 
 reading them. When I went into the 
 dining-room I said 
 
 Mr. Want objected to the conversa- 
 tion being given. 
 
 Petitioner : Did Mr. Miller ask you 
 whether you had received the letters ? 
 
 Mr. Want objected. 
 
 His Honor allowed the question, 
 .and the Respondent said that he did, 
 .and that Mr. Miller also asked her if 
 they were from Mr. Coningham. 
 
 Petitioner: What did you do with 
 the /3? I left it with the letters on 
 the chest of drawers. 
 
 When did you become insensible ? 
 At 10 o'clock that night. 
 
 When you recovered consciousness, 
 were the letters and the 3 still on the 
 chest of drawers ? No ; they were all 
 gone. I found the 3 in one of the 
 -drawers afterwards. 
 
 Were your boxes touched P^Yes. 
 
 Was your little boy sleeping with 
 you ? Yes. 
 
 Did he tell you something ? Yes. 
 
 Did you ask Mr. Miller what had 
 become of the letters ? Repeatedly. 
 
 Did he tell you ? He swore that he 
 didn't know. 
 
 Did anyone go into the room during 
 the night ? 
 
 Mr. Want : She said yesterday she 
 was unconscious ali night. 
 
 Petitioner : Yes ; but there was some- 
 one else there who wasn't. 
 
 Mr.' Want : Well, call them as wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 Petitioner: Your Honor. I would 
 like to bring him in, 
 
 Respondent : Call the boy. He 
 remembers it well enough. 
 
 Petitioner : He's only a little boy, 
 your Honor. 
 
 His Honor: Well, you can call him; 
 and I can then see if he is fit to be 
 examined. 
 
 Respondent : The housekeeper re- 
 members it well enough, too. 
 
 Mr. Want; Well, call her. 
 
 Petitioner: That's not so easy. (To 
 the Respondent) Do you remember 
 what night in the week this was ? I 
 think it %vas Tuesday. It might have 
 been Wednesday. 
 
 Did you haye any conversation with 
 Miss Ashe ? Yes. 
 
 In connection with those letters, and 
 your state of health ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Mrs. Coningham, don't 
 answer that question, please. 
 
 Petitioner : Just about that time was 
 Miller in great difficulties ? Yes ; he 
 was to be sold off on the Wednesday. 
 
 Previous to your being taken ill i 1 
 Yes. 
 
 Was he sold off? No. He went to 
 Sydney and got some money. 
 
 Mr. Want objected. 
 
 His Honor (to the Respondent): You 
 can't say what he did. 
 
 Respondent : Can't I say what he 
 told me ? 
 
 His Honor : No. 
 
 Petitioner : Did he appear to be 
 fairly flush when he came back ? No ; 
 but he was very lively. 
 
 Did he not get a new horse ? No 
 When he came back he stopped the 
 sale. 
 
 That was after you became un- 
 conscious ? Yes. 
 
 And lost your letters ? Yes.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 157 
 
 Would you recognise the letters 
 again ? Yes. 
 
 Did anybody take up any oysters 
 and stout ? No. 
 Did I ? No. 
 
 Did I speak to you at all at Fairfield, 
 or communicate with you at all in 
 writing ? No ; you only insulted me 
 by passing me by. 
 
 Was it in consequence of your illness 
 that you left Miller's ? That was one 
 reason ; I have another. 
 
 Give me that reason. 
 
 Mr, Want : I object. Reasons are 
 not evidence. 
 
 Petitioner : I want to get at the 
 letters, your Honor. That's what I'm 
 after. I accuse them of forgery, and I 
 \\-int to get at it, and I maintain it. 
 
 His Honor : The witness has given 
 one reason. 
 
 Mr, Want : I can't be always jump- 
 ing up to object. It would look like 
 taking an unfair advantage of him. 
 
 His Honor : Strictly speaking, it is 
 not evidence. (To Petitioner) : Perhaps 
 you had better not ask it. 
 
 Petitioner: Very well, your Honor. 
 
 His Honor: It is only a matter of sus- 
 picion. 
 
 Witness : It is not suspicion, your 
 Honor. 
 
 Petitioner : On going up to Miller's, 
 did you put the name of Mrs. Arnold 
 on anything ? On the boxes. 
 
 Did the name remain on them at 
 Miller's? No, I took it off. 
 
 Who met you at the station ? Mr. 
 Miller. 
 
 And you swear you do not know who 
 these letters were from ? No. 
 
 Do you know anyone of the name of 
 Mabel ? Only children. 
 
 Does anyone correspond with you 
 under the name of Mabel ? No. 
 
 How was the registered letter signed ? 
 I don't remember, I didn't read the 
 whole of it. 
 
 You say you did not understand 
 what it meant? No, I did not under- 
 stand. 
 
 You do not know who the ^3 came 
 from ? No. I kept it in case it was 
 asked for. 
 
 In one of the letters was there any- 
 thing about the "Burwah " ? I don't 
 think so. 
 
 Anything about oysters and stout ? 
 Yes. ' 
 
 Did you understand that ? No. I 
 
 did not know whether it was a joke or 
 an insult. 
 
 It was very much like iny writing ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did Miller ever tell you I wrote 
 about you going up ? 
 
 Mr. Want : I object. 
 
 Witness : I wrote to Miller myself. 
 
 Did you write a letter to anyone, 
 sajing, "If the 'Burwah' is in en 
 Sunday and brings luck, I will give you 
 three-quarters ?" No. 
 
 Did you write to me while you were 
 in Fairfield ? No. 
 
 Have you communicated with me 
 during or since the last trial? Not 
 that I remember. 
 
 Have ever I written to you ? - 1 
 received money from you. One biter 
 
 Mr. Want : I object. \Vait a mo- 
 ment, Mrs. Coningham ; you and I will 
 have a little conversation later on. 
 
 Mave you received a letter from me 
 in answer to a letter supposed to be 
 ssnt by you either during, before, cr 
 since the last trial ? No. 
 
 Will you swear you never wrote 
 what I showed you yesterday ? Yes. 
 
 We'll go back now to the time we 
 arrived from Melbourne with the 
 cricket team. How long after did you 
 go to the Presbytery ? About a week. 
 
 Whom did you see ? The Doctor. 
 
 What happened ? Adultery. 
 
 When was that ? January. 
 
 Can you fix a date ? About the first 
 week. 
 
 On another occasion you went there, 
 and he asked you something ? He 
 asked me to go to the office. 
 
 What did you say ? I refused. 
 
 Why ? Because you were waiting 
 for me. 
 
 Did he suggest anything ? Yes. 
 
 Did he say why ? Yes ; he said he 
 was going down to Retreat, and would 
 not see me for a week. 
 
 Did he have the keys ? He knew 
 where to get them. 
 
 Did Langton have the keys ? No ; 
 the bunch was too big. Sometimes the 
 key was in Langton's pocket. 
 
 Did the Co-respondent ever abstrac t 
 the kejs from Langton's pocket? I 
 believe so. 
 
 You have a child named Vincent 
 Francis ? Yes. 
 
 Why did you give it the name of 
 Vincent 
 
 Mr. Want : I object.
 
 158 
 
 THE COXINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Petitioner : Why did you give it the 
 name of Francis. 
 
 Mr. Wants I object. 
 
 Petitioner : What is the Co-respon- 
 dent's name ? Denis Francis. 
 
 Did you tell the Co-respondent why 
 you gave it those names ? Yes ; I said 
 I didn't like the name of Denis. 
 
 Did he ever run me down in your 
 presence ? I can't tell what other 
 people did. Someone else did. 
 
 Did the Co-respondent ever tell you 
 that the Rev. Mother 
 
 Mr. Want : Don't lead. 
 
 Petitioner : Ever made a complaint 
 about his conduct in connection with 
 the children at the Cathedral School ? 
 
 Mr. Want : This is a nice state of 
 things. I have no doubt this gentle- 
 man wants to throw all the mud he 
 can. 
 
 Petitioner: What did he say? 
 
 Witness : He said the mistress said a 
 child complained that he pulled her 
 hair and tickled her. 
 
 What did you say? I said "Why 
 should the child speak to the Sister 
 about it?" and he said, " The child 
 has only conceived some notions," and 
 I said, " If she has only conceived 
 notions it will not harm her." 
 
 Have you known Langton, the care- 
 taker, long? Ever since I've been 
 going to the Cathedral, 
 
 Did you ever tell him that you went 
 between the fernhouse and the Cathe- 
 dral ? 
 
 Mr. Want : I object. Call Langton 
 as you did last time. 
 
 Petitioner: Did you ever speak to 
 the Co-respondent by telephone ? Yes, 
 often. 
 
 What name did you give ? 
 
 Mr. Want : I object. 
 
 Petitioner : By what did he know you 
 by telephone ? The Convent of the 
 Good Samaritan. 
 
 That was a code between you ? Yes. 
 
 And would bring him to the tele- 
 phone ? Yes. 
 
 After the service of the petition, did 
 you have a conversation with the Co- 
 respondent by telephone ? I said, " I 
 have received something from my hus- 
 band. You know what." He said, 
 "What?" I said, " A petition." He 
 said, " Oh." I said, " I must see you." 
 He said, " I'll take Counsel's advice 
 first. Send me your address." He 
 said " Good night," and rang off. 
 
 When did you go again ? Next night. 
 
 What did you say ? I said, " I must 
 see you. I will come up to the Cathe- 
 dral, and you can come up accident- 
 ally." He said, " I have taken Coun- 
 sel's advice ; I cannot see you ; I dare 
 not ; send me your address." 
 
 What was the third conversation ? 
 The next day I said, " I must see you." 
 He said. " I won't see you. It is no 
 good you coming up. Send me a 
 letter." Then I got very nasty, and 
 said, "If you don't see me you'll be 
 sorry " 
 
 Did you go to the Church to see 
 him ? Yes. 
 
 Whom did you see ? Langton. The 
 Doctor was not in. 
 
 Did you ever send a verbal message 
 to the Co-respondent ? Yes. 
 
 Whom by ? Langton, but he never 
 got it. 
 
 Did you get a reply ? Yes ; from 
 Langton. 
 
 Did you ever send messages* to the 
 Co-respondent in the Confessional Box ? 
 Yes, twice. 
 
 Did he come out at once ? No ; he 
 finished the Confessions. 
 
 Did misconduct ever happen on those 
 occasions ? No. 
 
 Did you ever give Langton a letter 
 to give to anyone, and ths Co- 
 respondent go and take it from him ? 
 Yes ; it was a folded note to Miss Shiel. 
 I saw the Doctor leave the Box and 
 take it from Langton, and I thought he 
 read it and gave it back. 
 
 Did you ever commit adultery with 
 the Co-respondent in the waiting-room 
 at the Presbytery ? Yes. 
 
 Day or night? Night. 
 
 Witness proceeded to say that the 
 couch in the office had only one end. 
 At first it had two ends. The couch 
 was in a line with the door. The win- 
 dow-blinds were broken, and the 
 Doctor said he would have to get them 
 mended, as he was afraid someone 
 would see them. 
 
 Were they mended after you were 
 intimate or before? After. 
 
 Was the couch mended after or 
 before ? After. 
 
 Do you remember the dress you 
 wore on April i and April 30 ? - I 
 usually wear black. 
 
 Did you say you went down there in 
 the afternoon ? I don't exactly remem- 
 ber the time. 
 
 Do you remember the Passion Play ? 
 Yes.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 159 
 
 Were you the originator of it ? I Mr. Want : Never mind what you 
 
 think so. Mr, Bentley produced it. told them. 
 
 Was it at your instigation it was Petitioner: Do you remember what 
 
 produced ? -I think so. date it was ? It was held the beginning 
 
 Do you say it was through you the o f May. 
 Passion Play was brought about ? 
 
 Yes I think so When did you become acquainted 
 
 Were you the secretary of it, or sup- with Walter Bentley, or did you know 
 
 posed to be ?-I was supposed to be. him ^fore the play ? No. 
 
 I went round to see the managers of Who introduced you to him? Mr. 
 
 the papers, and told them about it. Eden George. 
 
 The Respondent said that the Petitioner had paid for some of 
 the advertisements. The Doctor had told her that the play was a 
 success. On the first occasion the light would not work. On the 
 second occasion the play was again successful. The Doctor told 
 her that they had cleared between ^"40 and ^"50 over and above the 
 expenses. His Eminence the Cardinal presided at the play. She 
 stated that through her close connection wrth the Passion Play the 
 Doctor presented her to Cardinal Moran. There were present, be- 
 sides a number of lay members, both priests and bishops. She, 
 however, was the only woman there. Among others, on that occa- 
 sion, she remembered Mr. Walter Bentley, Mr. T. M. Slattery, 
 Mr. Hughes, and Monsignor O'Brien. The Co-respondent pre- 
 sented her also to Mr. Slattery, saying as he did so, "This lady 
 has been interesting herself in getting up this play." The nights 
 upon which the play was performed were, she thought, the 2nd and 
 gth of May. On the loth of May she went, accompanied by Miss 
 Shiel, to see the Doctor. Miss Shiel waited outside, saying that 
 she would give her (witness) ten minutes. The Respondent saw 
 the Doctor in the Presbytery Office, and she did not come out for 
 half an hour. Misconduct took place on the couch in the office. 
 Miss Shiel, true to her word, did not wait for her. The witness 
 knew a woman named Hennessy, and believed her to be the house- 
 keeper at the Presbytery. Hennessy had often opened the door 
 tor her. Witness had once or twice conversed with her. Hennessy 
 was talking to Miss Shiel in the Sacristy when she (Mrs. Coning- 
 ham) went in. It was not the rule for witness to address her. 
 When Hennessy opened the door for her she showed her into one 
 of the rooms. No ! Miss Shiel was not a very particular friend 
 of hers (Mrs. Coningham) ; though she had thought that she was. 
 The Petitioner wished to know why she had changed her opinion 
 about Miss Shiel's friendship. Mr. Want interjected with, " Oh ! 
 never mind what you think now." The Respondent, continuing, 
 said that the Petitioner had never been cruel to her, though he had 
 been indifferent. She reiterated that Coningham had not behaved 
 cruelly towards her. " Before I knew of your infidelity?" asked 
 the Petitioner. " Before she told you, you mean," interjected Mr. 
 Want " No," said the Petitioner, "before I knew ot your infide- 
 lity?" il I object," said Mr. Want. But his Honor said to the 
 Senior Counsel in the Case, " You cannot object. He knows it
 
 i6o 
 
 THE COXINGIIAM CASE. 
 
 only from her. Of course, the Jury know well that the Petitioner 
 speaks of knowing it from her. For what it is worth, the question 
 is allowable. You can put it in that way." 
 
 Petitioner : Before I knew of your in- 
 fidelity with the Co-respondent, was I 
 cruel to you in any way at all ? No, 
 you quarrelled with me a lot when your 
 mother was ill, and that was before it. 
 
 Did I ever knock you about ? No. 
 
 Or was I ever intoxicated ? No. 
 
 Or ill-treat the children ? No. 
 
 Before the Co-respondent seduced 
 you, what was our life like happy ? 
 Always Homely and happy. 
 
 What is the cause of your indiffer- 
 ence ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Don't answer that, please. 
 
 His Honor : Surely he may ask the 
 cause of her indifference ? 
 
 Mr. Want : I object to it being asked 
 that way to the thin end of the wedge 
 with regard to certain reasons. Of 
 course, if this lady's story is right, we 
 all understand it. 
 
 His Honor allowed the question. 
 
 Respondent : Because I liked the 
 Doctor. When you were going to see 
 your mother I would go to him and, I 
 liked him best. 
 
 From the time I met you ten years 
 ago until you became intimately ac- 
 quainted with the Co-respondent, were 
 we happy together ? Yes. 
 
 Did he try in any way in any way 
 to save you if he saw you falling ? 
 No; I didn't want him to. 
 
 Wa3 it through him making love to 
 you and using force that you were se- 
 duced on July 3, 1898? Yes, it was. 
 
 What was your object in coming here 
 as a witness ? 
 
 Mr. Want: I object to that. We all 
 know her object. 
 
 Petitioner : You are quite aware that 
 you need not answer any question I 
 may put to you ? His Honor told me 
 so last time. 
 
 Coming to Brisbane. You knew a 
 man in 1886 or 1887, named Claude 
 Unmack ? Yes. 
 
 What was he ? A bank clerk. 
 
 Were they well-known people ? Yes. 
 
 Were you engaged to be married to 
 him ? Yes. 
 
 How old were you ? Fifteen at the 
 time. 
 
 Respondent went on to say, in answer 
 to further questions, that she had 
 arrived from England not long pre- 
 
 viously, and had been only a month 
 out of a convent. Unmack went to 
 Father Fouhy, a parish priest, who ob- 
 jected to marrying them. Unmack was 
 then under age. He was 19. At that 
 time there had been no intimate rela- 
 tions between them. Something oc- 
 curred afterwards, and Respondent's 
 mother went to Father Fouhy to get 
 him to marry them. He did not marry 
 them, and that was 14^ years ago. She 
 had an illegitimate child, of which Mr. 
 Unmack was the father, in 1887. Un- 
 mack went to America, 
 
 Petitioner : Did 1 know of the birth 
 of that child before I was sitting here 
 at the last trial ? - No. 
 
 Did you ever want to tell me ? Yes, 
 before you married me. 
 
 Would I allow you ? No. 
 
 Respondent, continuing, said that 
 she had gone by the name of Mrs, 
 Rogers. She had never stopped with 
 Petitioner or any other man at Daniel's 
 Hotel, in Brisbane, as man and wife. 
 She and Petitioner had never gone to 
 Father Fouhy to be married. Petitioner 
 had never consented to a marriage with 
 her in her Church. 
 
 Petitioner: When you assumed the 
 name of Mrs. Rogers, did Father Fouhy 
 know of it. 
 
 Mr. Want: I object. Call Father 
 Fouhy as to what he knew. 
 
 Respondent : Father Fouhy was Ad- 
 ministrator of the Church , and allowed 
 me to have my name on a pew in the 
 Church as Mrs. Rogers. She had a 
 letter from him, in which he addressed 
 her as Mrs. Rogers. 
 
 Petitioner : Will you produce it ? 
 No. 
 
 Mr. Want : I object. Call Father 
 Fouhy. 
 
 Petitioner : I wanted him last time, 
 r.nd he was here, but I could not get 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Want : Couldn't get him i Why 
 he was about the precincts of the Court 
 all the time. 
 
 Petitioner : Was Father Fouhy your 
 confessor ? Yes. 
 
 When you had the child, and for 
 years afterwards ? Yes. 
 
 Did he ever, as long as you have
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 161 
 
 known him, warn you off any buildings, 
 or anywhere. 
 
 Mr. Want objected to the question. 
 
 Petitioner: In the last trial there 
 cropped up a name, W ? Yes. 
 
 You were asked was that man not 
 continually visiting you during my ab- 
 sence in England ? Yes. 
 
 Have you ever received a visit from 
 him, or been alone with him ? Never. 
 
 You heard Mrs. Gorman say that he 
 visittJ you. Is that correct ?- She said 
 several visited me, and then she could 
 not give their names. 
 
 She gave that name. Is that true ? 
 No. 
 
 Respondent said, further, that she 
 was never a servant at Unmack's, or 
 anywhere else. During the time that 
 Petitioner was in England, she went to 
 Brisbane and stayed from Varch to 
 October, 1893. Then she went to New- 
 castle in October, and remained there 
 till the boat upon which her husband 
 was returning was signalled, whan she 
 came to Sydney to meet Petitioner. 
 Her father was an Army Pensioner. Her 
 mother was put in charge of the can- 
 teen in the barracks at Brisbane. 
 
 Petitioner : Why ? 
 
 Mr. Want objected. 
 
 Petitioner: Well, I want the reason 
 
 explained. In the last trial there was 
 a statement a serious statement by 
 Mr. Want, that this lady and her mother 
 were nothing better than ' ' garrison 
 hacks," and I want to refute that. 
 
 Mr. Want : I never said so. I said 
 that the evidence of certain people in- 
 dicated that they looked upon the Re- 
 spondent not her mother as a " gar- 
 rison hack." But we have to begin 
 this trial as though it were a new one 
 altogether 
 
 His Honor said that the Petitioner 
 would have an opportunity of calling 
 evidence in reply if he thought it neces- 
 sary, after the Case of the Co-respon- 
 dent was concluded . 
 
 Petitioner (to the Respondent): Who 
 is the father of your child, Vincent 
 Francis ? Dr. O'Haran. 
 
 How is it you place him as the father. 
 Was I not living with you at the time ? 
 Yes. 
 
 About what time was that ? It would 
 be about the middle of February. 
 
 How is it you place the Co-responden t 
 as being the father of the child when I 
 was living with you and sleeping in the 
 same bed at the time ? Because I 
 know. 
 
 You know I was being attended to 
 through my injury ? Yes. 
 
 Curious, is it not, that Coningham, so absolutely assured on 
 the question of the child's paternity ; so certain, on account ot 
 medical facts, known to himself, his wife, and his doctor, that no 
 confession from her should have been necessary to- confirm any 
 suspicions as to the Respondent's fidelity in her husband's mind, 
 actually penned the following letter to Miss Shiel, on the loth 
 November, 1899: 
 
 " 365 Glebe Road, 10/11/99. 
 " Dear Miss Shiel, 
 
 ' ' My dear wife asked me to drop you a note to say that a fine baby boy 
 made its appearance at 4.40 this morning, and thank God they are both doing 
 splendidly. 
 
 " Come out and see her as soon as you can manage it, as she would be so 
 pleased to see you. 
 
 ' ' Trusting you are keeping good health, with kindest regards from Mrs. 
 Coningham and myself, 
 
 " I remain, yours most sincerely, 
 
 "ARTHUR CONINGHAM." 
 
 Mrs Coningham, on her part, stated that little Vincent's 
 second name was the same as the Doctor's, as the child was chris- 
 tened after him ; yet the Respondent wrote to Miss Shiel on the 
 .3Qth December, 1899, the day after the baptizing of her child : 
 
 " How we caught the Dr. , do you really think he knew we were there, or did 
 that silly boy mix the message ? Was he not very funny, and never even asked 
 the baby's name."
 
 l62 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 You were staying at Mrs. Abrahams', 
 Valliscourt ?- Yes ; it was a boarding- 
 house, a cheap one. 
 
 What was your reason for leaving 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Want: I object to reasons. 
 
 Petitioner : Was it through some- 
 thing occurring in another room ? 
 Yes. 
 
 What was it ? Nasty words and bad 
 conversation. 
 
 Whom between ? 
 
 His Honor : We can't have that. It 
 has nothing to do with the Case. It is 
 only bringing in people who have 
 nothing to do with the Case. I can't 
 sit here for the rest of the year. 
 
 Mr. Want : This lady wants to have 
 a "go" at Mrs. Abrahams. 
 
 His Honor : The names will be pub- 
 lished in the papers, and these people 
 may he branded with bad conduct. I 
 can't allow it. 
 
 Petitioner : Very well, your Honor. 
 (To witness) : Did you ever have a 
 conversation with Mrs. Abrahams, 
 something about ^5,000 ? No, I never 
 did. 
 
 How long is it since you've been 
 between the Cardinal's Hall and the 
 Presbytery? About July or August, 
 1899. " 
 
 That was the last time you visited 
 it ? Yes. 
 
 You saw the plan ? Yes 
 
 Was the southern door locked in 
 1898 ? It was generally locked. I 
 never saw it open. 
 
 By which door did you go into the 
 Cardinal's Hall ? By the one on the 
 left. 
 
 Petitioner : Now, your Honor, any 
 matters I have not brought out, may I 
 bring them out afterwards ? 
 
 Hi's Honor : You must bring out 
 your Case now. You can ask upon 
 anything that is brought out in cross- 
 examination or in reply, but no fresh 
 matter. You cannot supplement your 
 Case afterwards with fresh matter, I 
 think, subject to what Mr. Want says, 
 you should have every latitude. 
 
 Mr. Want : Certainly, your Honor. 
 I have every desire to be as fair as 
 possible. 
 
 Petitioner : In your confession of 
 June 13 you wrote, " During the seven 
 years of our married life I have never 
 been unfaithful to you with anyone 
 before or since, except Dr. O'Haran, 
 who took all my affection away from 
 you." What do 3 ou mean by that ? 
 
 Mr. Want : We can't have what it 
 means. It speaks for itself. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham : It means exactly 
 what it says. 
 
 MR. WANT CROSS-EXAMINES THE RESPONDENT. 
 
 Mr. Want, the senior Counsel in the Case, then entered upon 
 his cross-examination of Mrs. Coningham, the Respondent. 
 
 Now, I want this quite clear, Mrs. 
 Coningham, You fixed some dates 
 here I don't suppose you want to 
 alter them April i, you remember 
 well. All Fools' Day, before 6 o'clock 
 what year was that ? 1899. 
 
 And April 30, about 4 o'clock, that 
 is what you swore yesterday ? I never 
 attempted to say the time on the first 
 occasion. 
 
 Before 6 o'clock ? I said that was 
 the second occasion, 
 
 When ? On April 30. 
 
 Did you not say this, ' ' I cannot fix 
 it definitely, but it was before 6 
 o'clock ?" Yes, that was April 30. 
 
 Did you not hear your husband ask 
 you was it not the first occasion, about 
 4 o'clock ? No, I don't know. I told 
 him yesterday that I could not remem- 
 ber the time. 
 
 Tell me when it was then ? I can't 
 remember. 
 
 About what time ? I would not like 
 to say. 
 
 Can't you fix some time in '99 ; you 
 gave us dates of months and hours, 
 and everything else, you know. Didn't 
 you swear it was on both occasions in 
 the afternoon ? Yes. 
 
 What do you call afternoon ? After 
 i and before 6. 
 
 I suppose you will admit this : That 
 this is the first time that you have ever 
 mentioned these two dates ? These 
 two identical dates, yes. 
 
 You never mentioned them at all 
 last time? I would not be sure. 
 
 Did you not just say it was the first 
 time you mentioned them ? As far as. 
 I remember.
 
 THE SECOND T.UAL. 
 
 i6 3 
 
 Mr. Want : Will your Honor oblige 
 me with the notes of the last trial ? 
 
 The notes having been handed down 
 from the bench, the learned Counsel 
 continued. 
 
 I suppose you don't want to shift 
 these or change them ? What are you 
 laughing at ? Do you mean to say you 
 cannot give me any better time than 
 on the first occasion i and 6 ? I 
 won't swear to it. 
 
 Can you give me any idea ? It was 
 some time in the afternoon. I won't 
 swear to any hour the first time. 
 
 Do you mean to tell me you can't 
 fix the time on one of these dates ? -I 
 can't give you the time for April i 
 not when I was only speaking to him. 
 
 On April 30, you told us that mis- 
 conduct was committed ? Yes. 
 
 And no doubt that was before 6 
 o'clock? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember at the last trial, 
 when you commenced your evidence, 
 almost the first words you spoke, after 
 you had said you knew Dr. O'Haran 
 and so on, were these: " I remember 
 June 29. 1898. I was at St. Mary's 
 Presbytery that night." You swore 
 that positively before ? No ; at the 
 cross-examination by you .1 swore it 
 conditionally. I said if my memory 
 didn't fail me. 
 
 Didn't I press you in cross-examina- 
 tion, and you swore it was the Wed- 
 nesday night, and that you knew it 
 because it was the last Wednesday in 
 the month before procession day ? At 
 the time I may have said so. I don't 
 remember. 
 
 In answer to me, while under cross- 
 examination, didn't you fix that abso- 
 lutely and positively as the date yes 
 or no ? Before I said yes or no, I 
 always spoke about it being wet the 
 night before, 
 
 Did you swear that ? If the record 
 says so, I did. 
 
 Did you not swear positively to June 
 29, and did you not say to me, " It 
 is impossible for him to have been 
 twenty miles away at 8 o'clock that 
 night, June 29 ?" No ; I didn't swear 
 that. I swore tnat Dr. O'Haran could 
 not have been twenty miles away at 
 the time I was speaking of. 
 
 Do you know that eight witnesses 
 were called, who swore that what you 
 said was absolutely untrue? Yes. 
 And three or four days of the time of 
 
 the Court were taken up with disprov- 
 ing that very date ? Yes. 
 
 Were you in Court when your hus- 
 band was addressing the Jury, and 
 said that they were all swearing lies ? 
 I was not in Court when he addressed 
 the Jury. 
 
 And now you change it not to the 
 mxt night but to July i ? Yes. 
 
 Now, I want you to be very careful. 
 You know this morning in Court your 
 husband asked you " did you think 
 the handwriting of that letter was very 
 like his " and " what did you do with 
 the /3- 1 ' You said, " I think it was 
 like yours, and yet I thought it was 
 not yours " ? Yes. 
 
 Did you ever write this: "The 
 number of the cab is 999. You know 
 his name, and he has two or three 
 vshicles. If you deny Arnold letter 
 and post-cardso will I. I will say 
 the writing was something like yours, 
 but as I never knew any Mabel and the 
 letters were stolen, I concluded that 
 the writer had stolen them. 
 I will keep the ^3 in case I am asked 
 about it." . . . You heard that? 
 Yes. 
 
 Now listen in this (reading) : " But 
 then, did you register them ? If so, 
 what then ?" you hear that ? Yes. 
 
 And this: " Taylor's telephone 5 14." 
 What Taylor is that 514? Do you 
 know it happens to be Taylor, the 
 solicitor ? I don't know. 
 
 Were you there at Taylor, the 
 solicitor's, office on Monday morn- 
 ing ? Yes. 
 
 At what time ? A little after 10. 
 
 Mr. Want (continuing to read) : 
 ' Taylor's telephone, 514. I will be 
 there in the morning if you want me to 
 strike' the Jury. Am sending prescrip- 
 tions to show I have been ill, and want 
 money. I never was with O'Haran on 
 those afternoons ' Zero ' speaks of ; but 
 on those identical nights adultery fol- 
 lowed at 7.30 in office. But cabby 
 says 450 a mistake. And it was by a 
 Glebe cabby, too. I can't think of his 
 name. My dress was green velvet 
 
 ." To the Respondent : Do yom 
 
 remember saying yesterday that it was 
 green velvet ? Yes. 
 
 We never had that before ? Yes ; we 
 had it yesterday. 
 
 Do you remember your husband 
 asked you vesterday how you were 
 dressed ? Yes. 
 
 And you said green velvet ? Yes.
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 (2 
 /~ 
 
 a 
 
 /: _ 
 
 A/yy./ ^ 
 
 <*#...* Jo
 
 1 66 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 * 
 
 'V 
 
 
 "^ (l- 
 
 -e-t,
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 167 
 
 y 
 
 
 lo 
 
 [Mrs Conin-'ham to M/ss S/i/V/.
 
 1 68 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mr. Want (continuing to read) : 
 " Green velvet and pink roses. . . . 
 Ask me about my means, and ask me 
 about Miss Shiel's letters. Write F.H., 
 anonymous letter, telling her if she 
 goes ' Conny ' will expose her doings. 
 Don't fidget, and don't be doing wrong 
 and apologising." (To the Respondent) : 
 You know that is a habit of his ? 
 (Continuing) ; " Serve letters produce 
 on O'Haran and the Cardinal. Also 
 for my letters to O'Haran. And don't 
 be so willing not to object ; and don't 
 let my letters to Miss Shiel go in 
 evidence." You hear that ? Yes. 
 
 Now, here's a little postscript, like 
 the ladies generally put. Oh, but wait 
 awhile. This says first: " Gave me a 
 harp on St. Patrick's night in a box." 
 Do you remember him asking you 
 about a box > esterday ? Yes, 
 
 And about the nun's pin ? Yes. 
 
 Now I will read the finish of this for 
 you. " Ask me how did I know it." 
 That's what you were asked yesterday, 
 was it not ? Yes. 
 
 Now for the postscript. " Tell me 
 the truth. Don't understand what I 
 wrote this afternoon. It is risky." 
 You are listening? "It is risky ?"- 
 Yes. 
 
 Now listen to the finish of it. "I 
 could not deny my handwriting ; they 
 might make me do it." " Now," said 
 Mr. Want, "Will you swear you did 
 not write that?" 
 
 Mrs. Coningham (emphatically) : 
 Yes, I will. I never wrote this. 
 
 Mr. Want : Don't you see that it 
 tallies with every question he has asked 
 you? Yes, but I could have answered 
 all those questions just as well last 
 time. 
 
 You've told us you've had no com- 
 municatiou at all with your husband ? 
 Yes. 
 
 So of course this must be a marvel- 
 lous business ? Yes. 
 
 So how could he ask you all these 
 questions ? We'll put that away for a 
 little while. Now, you told us you never 
 communicated with him. Whose writ- 
 ing is this (showing witness a docu- 
 ment) ? It purports to be mine. 
 
 Mr. Want showed witness several 
 letters, which she admitted were in her 
 writing. 
 
 The witness then, at Mr. Want's 
 request, came down to the table and 
 wrote, " Copy this type-written stuff," 
 said Mr. Want. The witness did so. 
 
 The copy she wrote was marked for 
 identification. 
 
 Mr. Want : Did you write this 
 letter? It commences, "I want 
 money." No, I did not. 
 
 (This letter, commencing, " I want 
 money. Do not forget the hall-plan in 
 your summing up," and purported to 
 be from the Respondent to Petitioner,) 
 
 Mr. Want (to witness) : Now look at 
 
 the "c's" in "can." They are pecu- 
 
 liarly formed. They do not join the 
 
 other leters. They are like yours? 
 
 Yes, very like. 
 
 Lookat "concert," "continue," and 
 " court." Look at the letter " k " and 
 the " the's." 
 
 Mr. Want showed photographs of a 
 letter to the Jury, and pointed out the 
 peculiarities of the writing. " Now," 
 he said to the Jury, " look at what she 
 has just written in Court, and at this- 
 letter from her to Miss Shiel." 
 
 His Honor pointed out that the 
 actual words, not merely letters, were 
 used in the notes Respondent ad- 
 mitted she wrote to Miss Shiel and in 
 the letter she denied writing to Peti- 
 tioner. The words may be compared 
 better than only letters. It might help 
 the Jury, he said, to an opinion one 
 way or the other. 
 
 At Mr. Want's request the witness 
 then came down to the Barristers' Table, 
 and again wrote several sentences at 
 his dictation. 
 
 Upon resuming, after lunch, Mr. 
 Want said he would like to have some 
 of the letters marked, and while they 
 were being marked, he would like the 
 Jury to look at two documents. His- 
 Honor would remember one he read 
 was, " If you deny Arnold's letter and 
 post-card, so will I." He wanted the 
 jury to compare one or two words in 
 that with one or two words in a letter 
 marked, " Exhibit B." 
 
 Petitioner: I want that letter in your 
 Honor. 
 
 His Honor : It isn't in yet ; it has 
 only been marked for identification, 
 
 Mr. Want : I have not the slightest 
 objection to his seeing it. One was a 
 letter the wife admitted to Miss Shiel. 
 and the other is a letter marked "V." 
 "If you deny Arnold's letter and post- 
 card so will I." 
 
 Petitioner : Am I not entitled to see 
 that, your Honor. 
 
 His Honor : Yes, you will see it in 
 good time.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 169
 
 1 7 o 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 N J 
 
 %, 
 
 'a 
 
 ^ 
 
 w^ 
 
 JL 
 
 4 '*. '\i 
 
 fO V 
 
 K T 
 
 ' Ki 
 ^ 
 
 Ol - 4 
 N^ \ 
 
 ^ J 
 
 ] 
 
 1 
 
 J 
 
 ^. ^ 
 
 x ^ 
 
 1 ' ? 
 $ ^ 
 
 SJ- ^ 
 
 X f j ' 
 ^V CN 
 
 . c^ 
 
 i 
 x ^ 
 
 :f 
 
 '0 
 
 . >v 
 \ \ 
 
 it 
 
 H 
 
 J 
 ^ 
 
 } 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 4 
 4 
 
 S 
 
 :| 
 
 . ^ - 
 \ 
 
 -*gr\ 
 SPL, Sri 
 
 j 1 e- 
 
 1 J^ ^ - 
 
 ,; s^X ^ 
 
 : ^ 
 
 
 \-t ! 
 
 "< 
 
 ^ 
 
 'r 
 
 N? 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 V -3 
 
 v^ .V 
 
 Mf< 
 %" 
 
 -t 
 
 1i 
 
 N. Ai n 
 
 II'- 
 
 K^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 
 j' 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1* 
 
 \J 
 
 4 
 
 fO 
 
 i'l 
 
 K \A 
 
 x r j' 
 
 -\ -j 
 
 ^ 
 
 -''. * M 
 * V rO ' 
 
 
 ^;^ 
 
 ^ s, 
 
 1 
 
 ^i 
 
 v 4 
 
 x) 
 
 1 
 
 \J 
 "^ 
 
 s, 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 \i 
 
 "l \ 
 
 r\ 
 
 x\ 
 
 
 U 
 
 Jf 
 
 V ^ 
 
 ' -J 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 ^ ^ 
 1 ^ 
 
 5J vk 
 
 >J 
 
 |p 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ) 
 | 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 M 
 
 k 
 
 5 
 
 Si 
 
 ^ 
 Si 
 
 < J , ' 
 
 1^ .] 
 
 [Mrs. Coningham's Instructions to Coningham in his conduct of the " Case." 
 A Document produced by Mr. H . A. Moss in Court.']
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 171 
 
 Mr. Want (to Mr. Coningham) : Do 
 you want to see these before the Jury 
 sees them ? I do. I want to look at 
 all these letters. 
 
 Mr. Want: Certainly (handing him 
 the letter). Don't knock it about. 
 
 Petitioner : I'm not knocking it 
 about. I'm only examining it. You 
 had it a fair time. Turning to his 
 Honor: May I have a look at the 
 exhibit I put in last night ? 
 
 Mr. Want: There have been none 
 put in. They have been marked for 
 identification. 
 
 His Honor (to Petitioner) : Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want : And now, while Mr. 
 Coningham is looking at that, there are 
 some of these not marked. I would 
 like to have them separately marked. I 
 tender one now, dated October 2, '99, 
 which was admitted was her hand- 
 writing. The next is n/i/'oo, Mrs. 
 Coningham to Miss Shiel. Then there 
 is one Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel, 
 17/3/1900; another October 31, '99, 
 same to Miss Shiel. 
 
 His Honor : Will you hand them in 
 as you read them ? 
 
 Mr. Want : That is exactly what I 
 am doing. The next is 7/1/1900, also 
 Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel ; the 
 next is simply addressed " Sunday." 
 That is all ; there is no date. 
 
 His Honor : Whom is it from ? 
 
 Mr. Want: " From Mrs. Coningham 
 to Miss Shiel. Turning to Petitioner: 
 Have you finished with it ? 
 
 Petitioner : Yes, thank you. 
 
 Mr. Want : I will ask your Honor to 
 allow me now, or allow the Associate, 
 to mark three different places. It is 
 almost impossible to keep these to- 
 gether to draw the attention of the 
 Jury to things I want. I only want 
 them marked underneath with red 
 pencil, to show what I mean. There 
 are some words here I want to draw 
 particular attention to with the other 
 document. 
 
 Petitioner . No ; as these, I submit, 
 are forgeries, I won't consent to any of 
 them being marked 
 
 Mr. Want: Your Honor, I don't 
 want to mark any of what he calls the 
 forgeries at all. I want to mark the 
 letters which she says are in her hand- 
 writing. 
 
 Petitioner said he could have no 
 objection to Counsel's marking the 
 originals. 
 
 Mr. Want then marked certain places 
 in the letter. 
 
 Mr. Want: Here are two pieces of 
 what I read to the witness, and she 
 swears she never wrote them, in which 
 there are three or four words "the." 
 I have marked the same word in letters 
 she admits she wrote. I have also 
 marked the word "spoken," and I 
 want to draw attention to the similar 
 word in the other paper. I have 
 marked them in her handwriting, and 
 I want them compared with the others. 
 
 Mr. Want then handed the papers to 
 the Jury for inspection. 
 
 While waiting, one of the Jury, ad- 
 dressing his Honor, said : ' 'Your Honor, 
 the Jury would like to know whether 
 they can be given an idea as to when 
 this is likely to be over. This is the 
 third day, and we are all men of busi- 
 ness, so that attendance here involves 
 great loss to us. We should like to 
 know when it is likely to be over, and 
 also what remuneration we may expect, 
 
 His Honor : You are not entitled to 
 any extra remuneration until after the 
 third day, at any rate. 
 
 The Foreman : Well, your Honor, 
 this is the third day, 
 
 His Honor : Well, from to-morrow 
 I will see that you will get further re- 
 muneration. I can hardly say at pre- 
 sent what the amount will be, but I 
 will let you know in the morning. 
 
 The Juror : Thank you, your Honor. 
 
 Mr .Want then submitted other letters 
 to the Jury (admittedly written by the 
 Respondent), in which he had marked 
 words such as "the," " then," " there," 
 and others containing the letters " th." 
 He asked the Jury to compare them 
 with the so-called forgeries. 
 
 Mr. Want (to the Respondent): Now, 
 Mrs. Coningham, do you remember at 
 the last trial a plan was produced show- 
 ing the Cathedral , where the steps v. ere, 
 and where the wall of the fern-house 
 was ? I saw a plan, yes. 
 
 And you said you went down some 
 steps to a lane, and then down two or 
 three steps into the Cardinal's Hall ? 
 I- said it might have been four steps ; I 
 wasn't sure. 
 
 After the Jury saw the place, I asked 
 you whether you hadn't to go down 
 seventeen steps to the Cardinal's Hall ? 
 I think you did. 
 
 You swear you did not write this to 
 your husband : " I want money. Don't 
 forget the hall-plan in your summing
 
 172 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 > Cfl 
 
 &rf fa at^~'&t>T. 72^3/Zs#<~r 
 
 [Specimens o_f Mrs. Coningh'am's hand-ivriting, written in Court.] 
 
 up. Could you not let someone tell 
 Slattery's clerk that my sister would 
 only give me away, so as they would 
 subpoena her , Then you could ques- 
 
 tioning. You did your case no good ; 
 you mad tlung. Why did you not ask 
 for me to be allowed to see the plan 
 to-night ? I could not understand the 
 
 tion her and get it. I thought you would seventeen steps. Ask to have it shown 
 never be done with your cross-ques- to me to-morrow."
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 173 
 
 Mr. Want handed in the letter, with 
 a request that it be marked for identifi- 
 cation. 
 
 Petitioner : May I ask, your Honor, 
 before this is put in as evidence, where 
 these letters came from ? 
 
 Mr. Want: They are not being put 
 in as evidence yet. What does it m tter 
 to you if we got them out of the British 
 Museum if your wife never wrote 
 them ? To the Respondent : Do you 
 remember the Petitioner asking, next 
 morning, that ) ou should be shown the 
 plan ? Just before the luncheon hour ; 
 yes. 
 
 Didn't I object to it being taken 
 away for the night, as he asked ? No ; 
 nothing of the kind was asked. You 
 objected to me taking it away during 
 the luncheon hour ; but I never asked 
 to do so. 
 
 As a matter of fact there was an 
 applicatiou for it to be shown to you ? 
 I think the Judge merely showed it 
 to me, I never heard my husband 
 make any application for it 
 
 Although you were sitting in Court ? 
 Yes. I never heard such an appli- 
 cation. 
 
 Do you remember at that trial that 
 Langton made a statement on oath 
 here as to something you said ? 
 
 Petitioner objected to anything 
 Langton said. 
 
 His Honor : This is simply a ques- 
 tion as to whether a statement was 
 made. 
 
 The Respondent answered in the 
 affirmative. 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you remember this 
 (reading): "It is no good Want" (I 
 suppose that's me) " trying to show 
 the Jury that I did say what Langton 
 says. I never spoke about the wall by 
 the fern-house only the path between 
 the Hall and the Church. You in your 
 summing-up must make that clear." 
 Do you remember that ? No. 
 
 Mr. Want : Didn't you swear that 
 you went to the Cardinal's Hall pass- 
 ing between the fernery and the Cathe- 
 dral ? Never. 
 
 THE FERN-HOUSE INCIDKNT. 
 
 Did you swear that you had to walk 
 round on an asphalt path between the 
 fernery and the Cathedral to the Car- 
 dinal's Hall ? No. 
 
 And wasn't it with respect to that 
 particular thing that you said your 
 word was as good as Langton's ? No, 
 I never said that. 
 
 You remember you were asked by me 
 if an alteration was not made at St. 
 Mary's then, and that there was a stone 
 wall between the two places ! No, you 
 did not. 
 
 Don't you remember swearing that 
 to me No, I did not. 
 
 Didn't you say, "I know where the 
 fern-house is. I think we went between 
 the fern-house and the Cathedral " 
 That's corrected later on. 
 
 Didn't you swear that and correct it 
 after No. 
 
 Didn't you swear, ' ' I know where the 
 fern-house is. We went out at theWool- 
 loomooloo side of the Cathedral down 
 some steps alon^ a passage. There is 
 a passage between the Cathedral and 
 the Cardinal's Hall, and a small wall ? 
 I don't remember. 
 
 1 want to be perfectly fair. Here are 
 the notes of the previous trial. Didn't 
 I call your attention to the stone wall, 
 that it had been removed since. No; 
 I don't remember you asking that. 
 
 Didn't you go on to say, " I did not 
 go between the fern-house and the 
 Cathedral ?" No ; I did not. 
 
 Didn't you swear that at the trial ? 
 I don't remember it. 
 
 Didn't you swear, " I never told any- 
 one so. I may have said it instead of 
 describing the right way ; but I am 
 positive now " I don't remember say- 
 ing that. 
 
 Didn't you say, " I would not under- 
 take to swear I did not tell anyone I 
 went that way " No. 
 
 You know it was taken down in 
 shorthand ? I don't remember, 
 
 You won't swear? No, I won't 
 swear. 
 
 Did you not swear it ' If it is there 
 I said it, but I did not tell anyone. 
 
 Didn't you swear this, " I have not 
 found out since that there is a stone 
 wall between the Cathedral and the 
 Cardinal's Hall"? Yes, I know there 
 was a stone wall. I do not know it 
 was pulled down. I don't know now. 
 
 Did you swear what I just said ? 
 Yes, I did, I remember. 
 
 Did you say this; "I may have 
 made a mistake in telling mv husband, 
 in saying I went between the Cathe- 
 dral and the fern-house?" I don't re- 
 member saying it. 
 
 Did you say ; " I do not believe I
 
 171- 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 X
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 175 
 
 [Two pages oj a letter written by AT rsJJ Coningham to Miss SAtV/.] 
 
 M
 
 1 7 6 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 ever mentioned the fern-house. If 1 
 did, it must have been a mistake ?"- I 
 may have said it. 
 
 Did you tell him ?--Yes. 
 
 That was the night of July 3 ? Yes. 
 
 The night you went out of the 
 Sacristy and round the Church ? Yes. 
 
 Did you write, " I never spoke about 
 the wall and the fern-house ; only the 
 path and the Church ? " Whoever 
 wrote that knew what was going on in 
 Court ? - They knew very well. 
 
 There was a lot of trouble at the 
 trial about the seventeen steps there ? 
 There were never seventeen steps 
 there. 
 
 You swear it ? No ; there was not in 
 1898. There were only two or three 
 steps, There may have been half a 
 dozen. 
 
 Will you now swear there were not 
 seventeen steps there on July 3, 1898? 
 Yes ; I swear there were not. 
 
 You saw the plan produced ? Yes. 
 
 And the contractor, Mr. Barr, gave 
 evidence about the alterations ? Yes, 
 and he did not know anything about it. 
 
 Did he give evidence about the steps ? 
 No, he could not because they had 
 been destroyed. He knows he put 
 seventeen there now. 
 
 Did you not write this: "I have 
 been in the fernery, but could not get 
 by it "? No, I never wrote that. 
 
 Do you remember at the trial you fixed 
 that you had misconducted yourself 
 with Dr. O'Haran at St. Mary's on the 
 night of March 17, 1899, and between 
 7.30 o'clock and a quarter to 8 ? It 
 was nearly 8 o'clock. 
 
 When you left ? Yes, a few minutes 
 to 8. 
 
 You swear it was 7.30, and you left 
 at a few minutes to 8 ? Yes. 
 
 You know the Doctor gave evidence 
 that a Mr. Purcell left the Cathedral 
 with him in a cab at 7 o'clock to go to 
 the Town Hall with tickets for the 
 concert ? - Yes. 
 
 And ten or twelve other witnesses 
 said the same thing ? Yes, I heard 
 them say it. 
 
 Will you swear you did not write 
 this to your husband, " Find out that 
 fellow he said he drove to the Town 
 Hall with." What did you want to 
 find him out for? I didn't want to find 
 him. 
 
 You wanted to square him ? Mr. 
 Coningham had no money to square 
 anyone. 
 
 But > ou have a lot to go about in 
 cabs, and for dressmakers and things. 
 Did you write this : " If I am put in the 
 box again, let me have a go at Mrs. 
 Abrahams the woman you said to-day 
 kept a cheap boarding-house ,; I did n't 
 say a cheap boarding-house. 
 
 Did your husband ask you where it 
 was ? He asked me what sort it was. 
 
 And is it not a lar^e boarding-house 
 in Alberto Terrace ? Yes. 
 
 Now listen to this : ' ' Let me have a 
 go at Mrs. Abrahams, Miss Sutherland, 
 and the St. Patrick's Night concert, 
 '99." Well, you were put back in the 
 box ? Yes. 
 
 Did you " have a go" at Mrs. Abra- 
 hams ? Certainly not. 
 
 Did you not make remarks about the 
 house and things? No: I was only 
 asked one question. 
 
 Did you make remarks about Miss 
 Sutherland ? Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Did you say some nasty things about 
 her ? No. 
 
 When I say " nasty," I mean what 
 the ladies call unpleasant things ? No, 
 I don't remember. 
 
 Do you remember Mrs, Bostock, 
 your sister, was not called in the Peti- 
 tioner's Case-in-chief ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember he called her 
 afterwards, when his Case was closed, 
 and my Case was gone into? Yes. 
 
 And his Honor said it was too late, 
 and he ought to have served her before ? 
 Yes. 
 
 You remember that ? Yes. 
 
 Now listen to this: "Why did you 
 not tell his Honor you had only just 
 found Mrs. Bostock; serve you right 
 for not serving her when I told you ?" 
 Well, I distinctly remember saying 
 that in company. 
 
 You said that ; it was not in writing ? 
 No. 
 
 Who did you say it in company to ? 
 
 The Petitioner objected to the ques- 
 tion. 
 
 His Honor asked him why. 
 
 Petitioner : Well, your Honor, un- 
 less it is in the company of either the 
 Co-respondent or myself. 
 
 His Honor : But she is the Respon- 
 dent 
 
 Mr. Want : And she is his witness 
 
 Petitioner: Well, I asked certain 
 questions and could get them in this 
 morning, when she was still the Re- 
 spondent. 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you remember say-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 177 
 
 ing in company, " Why didn't your 
 husband tell the judge that he had only 
 just found Mrs, Bostock, and it served 
 him right for not serving her when you 
 told him?" I didn't say the exact 
 words, but I remember speaking about 
 Mr. Coningham conducting his own 
 t Case, and why he didn't subpoena my 
 sister. 
 
 To prove your dishonour? To prove 
 he truth, 
 
 Whom did you say it to ? To Mr 
 Exton and to a party in Fairfield. 
 
 Petitioner : I'll let the names go in 
 now, your Honor. 
 
 Mr, Want : I don't want the names. 
 
 When was the party in Fairfield ? 
 Only a couple of weeks ago. 
 
 And that was after the trial was over? 
 Yes. 
 
 Then you were discussing the old 
 trial ? I don't say the whole trial. I 
 spoke about one or two things. 
 
 Were you discussing the Case there ? 
 I was. 
 
 And you discussed this very thing 
 about ' ' you ought to have served her 
 before ?" I said I could not under- 
 stand why he did not serve her. 
 
 You know a man named Taylor, 
 called here as a witness in the last trial, 
 who swore he saw you at the Cathe- 
 dral on a certain day while the Case 
 was pending, and he fixed it on Tues- 
 day ? Yes. 
 
 And you proved that on that day you 
 were never out of the Court ? Yes. 
 
 Did you tell them, when discussing 
 this Case, that Taylor had made a mis- 
 take in one day ; and if he had said the 
 day before you were done ? No ; I did 
 not, because I can prove an alibi the 
 day before. 
 
 You will swear you did not say any- 
 thing about that while you were dis- 
 cussing the Case? Yes, I will. 
 
 When were you discussing the Case 
 before he went up or after ? I think 
 it was after. 
 
 How long had you been there before 
 he got there ? Two days. 
 
 You went up on? Friday, and he 
 came on Sunday. 
 
 Didn't you say Exton was there? 
 No. 
 
 What ? Didn't you say he was one 
 you were discussing it with ? Yes. 
 
 At Fairfield ? No. 
 
 When was it, then ? I think it was 
 lour or five days ago. 
 
 The sister you speak of was Mrs. 
 Bostock ? Yes, 
 
 She was called late in the last Case, 
 and was not allowed to give evidence 
 because she was called too late in the 
 Case? -Yes. 
 
 Are you sure you haven't tumbled 
 into the same little difficulty about Dr 
 O'Haran this time on April 30 
 picked the wrong date again ? No. 
 
 Would you be astonished to hear 
 that he was away that day at a place 
 called Waitara, laying a foundation- 
 stcne, in the presence of a large crowd, 
 with the Cardinal, and that he didn't 
 get back until 7.30 p.m. You swear he 
 was with you before 6 ? Yes, I do. 
 
 Haven't you been a bit unlucky ? 
 (No answer.) 
 
 Who is " Zero " ? I don't know. 
 
 Do you know anything about him ? 
 I have heard the name mentioned ; 
 that's all I know about it, 
 
 Now, Mrs. Coningham, I want to 
 refer you to these dates in April. You 
 still swear to the alleged misconduct 
 before 6 p.m. on April 30 ? (A pause) 
 I may have made a mistake. (Laugh- 
 ter.) You almost made me swear it. 
 I told you it was to the best of my belief 
 as near as I could remember. 
 
 Almost made ) ou swear it ? I did 
 make you swear it, and you swore it 
 positively yesterday, and then again 
 to-day not once, or twice, but three 
 times. You swore it was in the after- 
 noon, too, and that you left there before 
 6. Now I ask you again. What do 
 you say if you have made another 
 muddle of it? That would be awk- 
 ward, wouldn't it ? Was not April 30 
 a Sunday ? 
 
 You fixed the Sunday all right. You 
 thought you would be sure to catch 
 him there on Sunday. Who told you 
 to fix it on Sunday ? I don't know. 
 
 Was it " Zero " ? No. 
 
 You don't know who told you ? Do 
 you know who told your husband to 
 tell the cabman that you had a green 
 dress on ? No, I don't know that. 
 
 Now, we will go back to the 3oth. 
 I suppose because that was a Sunday 
 you thought you would not be far out 
 he would be sure to be there. Now, 
 who told you to fix on the Sunday ? I 
 went down in a cab. 
 
 Was it cab 999 by the way? No 
 answer. 
 
 Now, who told you to fix the Sun- 
 day ? I did.
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Did you tell your husband ? No. 
 
 How did he know ? I fixed it. He 
 did not know. He asked me the date 
 yesterday, and I said the 3oth, 
 
 Will you swear that your husband 
 yesterday didn't ask you for these two 
 particular dates, and that you didn't 
 put him up to it ? Didn't he ask you 
 about the ist April, and then about 
 the 3Oth April? I didn't hear him. 
 
 And you didn't answer him ? I don't 
 remember. 
 
 Didn't he say, " What were you 
 doing on April 30?" And didn't you 
 answer, " Adultery " ? Yes, he did. 
 
 Will you tell me where your husband 
 was supposed to have got that infor- 
 mation from ? I gave it to him. 
 
 When ? Yesterday. 
 
 In Court you mean ? Yes. 
 
 But where did he get the information 
 to ask you upon ? I don't know. 
 
 Petitioner asked that his Honor 
 should refer to the notes of Tuesday's 
 proceedings. He had not asked the 
 questions alleged- 
 Mr. Want : I won't break off at this 
 stage I won't press it. 
 
 His Honor : The whole thing turns 
 upon whether he asked those questions 
 or not. 
 
 Mr. Want : I'd rather not break off 
 my cross-examination here,) our Honor. 
 I'll leave that for the present. The Jury 
 may dismiss that part of it from their 
 minds." (To the Respondent) : Well, at 
 all events, you heard him ask you what 
 dress you had on that day? He asked 
 me what colour it was 
 
 What put it into his head to ask you 
 that ? I haven't the faintest idea. 
 
 And I suppose you don't know what 
 put it into his head to ask what time it 
 was? I don't know. 
 
 Do you mind telling me how the 
 awful details of this drugging this 
 attempted murder, I think you call it 
 
 got to your husband? I made a 
 complaint of it to Mr. Exton. 
 
 Did you tell him all the details ? 
 No. 
 
 Not a nice thing for a married 
 woman to tell another man. Is that 
 where your husband got it from ? I 
 suppose so. 
 
 You were surprised to hear that he 
 knew of it ? I was surprised to hear it 
 yesterday. 
 
 Surprised that he knew of it ? No 
 surprised to hear him mention it here. 
 
 At the last trial, were you asked one 
 solitary word about what he calls the 
 "filthy details ?" Not that I re- 
 member. 
 
 About the silk handerchiefs ? No. 
 
 Did you put him up to it ? No. 
 
 I suppose you think Dr. O'Haran 
 did ? I don't know. 
 
 Well, you and Dr. O'Haran, accord- 
 ing to you, are the only two persons 
 who knew anything about it eh ? 
 No answer. 
 
 While we are talking about these 
 things, I'll trouble you to tell us what 
 they were. You declined to say yester- 
 day, vou know. We'll have it now. 
 May I write it ? 
 
 No ; I think I'll have it right out. 
 
 Petitioner objected, saying that he 
 was not allowed to have it. 
 
 His Honor: I beg your pardon. The 
 witness refused to answer you. 
 
 Petitioner : Well, may she refuse to 
 answer now. 
 
 His Honor remarked that it affected 
 the credibility of the witness. He was 
 sorry to say he could not shut it out. 
 
 Mr. Want : I will ask your Honor 
 to let her write it down. 
 
 Respondent then wrote something 
 on a piece of paper, which, after 
 having been inspected by the Jury, 
 was marked for identification. 
 
 A MATTER OF SPELLING. 
 
 Mr. Want: So far as you know, only 
 you and Dr. O'Haran knew about this? 
 Yes. 
 
 And you never told your husband ? 
 I never did. 
 
 It would be a nasty thing for a 
 woman to say. You never told him? 
 No ; I did not. 
 
 Mr. Want (to the Respondent) ; You 
 know this document I read this morn 
 ing, which you swore you had never 
 seen ? Yes. 
 
 This is it ? Yes. 
 
 Now, tell me, how did you spell 
 " adultry " this morning in the piece of 
 paper you wrote for me, at my dicta- 
 tion ? I spelt it wrong. 
 
 How? "T-r-y." 
 
 Now, how does this forging gentle- 
 man spell it ? Look at that (handing 
 up a paper). Isn't that word adultery 
 spelt " try," the same as you spelt it ? 
 This is " a-d-u-s."
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 1 79 
 
 Afrs. Coningham in Court.]
 
 ISO THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Never mind about that. Its " t-r-y," Respondent: If he is allowed to go- 
 
 isn't it ? Yes. I'll leave the house while he is there ? 
 
 Isn't it the same as your try?" His Honor : Where are you staying ? 
 
 Try " comes after a lot of words. Respondent : Paddmgton. 
 
 ..:-, His Honor: It would be very hard 
 
 I know it does Try, try again to nt him An Q ^ cer f 
 
 How do you spell prescription? t he Court could go with him. There 
 
 How did you spell it this morning? fa no need to sta ; long . 
 
 Isn't that pri, the same as on the Mr. Want (to Respondent) : How 
 
 so-called "forgery? It s pre. long since he v was th re before last 
 
 The documents were then handed to night ? He served me with a sub- 
 
 the Jury for inspection. pcena on Saturday. The child has- 
 
 Mr. Want : The Petitioner has been had a bad turn. He has not seen 
 
 up to see his child last night, your her 'for a long time before that. 
 
 Honor. I do object to him going to Mr. Want : Two or three minutes 
 
 the same house as this lady is in. It should be sufficient, 
 
 is a most unusual thing. I ask either Respondent : I'll leave the house if 
 
 that he should not go, or if he is par- I kn w what time he's coming, 
 
 ticularly anxious to go that an Officer Mr. Want : We don't want that, 
 
 of the Court should go with him. His Honor : I'll make no order for 
 
 T-, .... T,,, ,, .> . her to leave the house. 
 
 Petitioner: 111 allow that, your ,, T , r . ^ T , r ,, .,., 
 
 TT J Mr. Want : We 11 pay for the cab if 
 
 Mr. Coningham will take it from Mr, 
 Mr. Want : Why go at all ? Slattery. 
 
 Petitioner : I would like to go. The Petitioner : I prefer to pay my ow n 
 
 child is very ill. expenses, thank you all the same. 
 
 The witness was still urder cross-examination when the 
 Court adjourned until next day. 
 
 During the day the Court was crowded, and 200 or 300 
 persons assembled in the vicinity to see the parties as they entered 
 or departed. 
 
 The fourth day of the trial (March i4th) was as interesting as- 
 any of its predecessors. The proceedings opened with a statement 
 by his Honor, who informed the Jury that from that date they 
 would receive a little extra pay from the Crown, and he would 
 make an order against the parties that they should receive another 
 i os. , making fees i a day. Mr. Want then applied to his Honor 
 for leave to ask the Petitioner a further question with reference to 
 a document. Said the Justice, "Treating him as being recalled ?' r 
 "Yes," replied Counsel, he might have to send for a telegram. 
 Did he want it then ? asked his Honor. Yes, it was only a short 
 question. The Petitioner asked the Judge if he could object 
 going into the box until Mr. Want had finished cross-examining 
 the witness. His Honor said that it was a very* unusual course, 
 but sometimes it was necessary to get certain information, and 
 witnesses were sometimes interposed for the purpose of getting 
 that information. The Petitioner wished to know why he should 
 go into the box, except by his free will. The Judge intimated 
 that he could be compelled to do so. Coningham then consented 
 to go into the box. 
 
 The Petitioner, in answer to questions asked by Mr. Want, 
 said that he never sent a telegram signed "J. Exton " with
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL l&I 
 
 "A.C. " at the bottom of it. Counsel here showed the original 
 telegram to the witness, who, having examined it, said that it was 
 dated i8th February. In reply to Mr. Want, he could not swear 
 as to whether he had sent any telegram on that date. " To 
 Miller's, of course?" interjected the *'K.C." Petitioner, vehe- 
 mently, " I did not send that telegram." Mr. Want asked 
 Coningham if he did not know that it had come from the Govern- 
 ment Office. No, the Petitioner did not know whence it had come. 
 Yes, he had seen the boy produce something. He could not swear, 
 that he had, on the igth February, written : 
 
 " Dear Fred, I sent you a wire yesterday to meet me at Fairfield Station." 
 
 Oh ! he had not written on the igth : " I sent you a telegram," 
 and so forth : Coningham said that he might have done so, but it 
 didn't follow that he sent the written document produced in Court 
 
 he would not swear to it. The letter-card of the igth was then 
 shown to the Petitioner, and he said, " Evidently I did send that 
 telegram." Mr. Want read the telegram of the i8th, which read : 
 
 "Dear Fred, meet me at Fairfield Station." The card of the igth 
 read " Dear Fred, I sent you a telegram yesterday to meet me at 
 Fairfield Station." Mr. Want wished to read a newspaper report 
 to show that on the previous day April ist and April 3oth were 
 referred to, the object being to see whether the month of April was 
 brought up by the Petitioner whether the dates in it were 
 volunteered by the Respondent. His Honor said that the dates 
 mentioned by Counsel had both been distinctly referred to. 
 
 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT. 
 
 The Senior Counsel in the C'xse resumed his cross-examination 
 of the Respondent. He showed her a paper, and asked her to state 
 whether certain letters were "i's" or "e's." Mrs. Coningham 
 pointed out that one letter was an "i," because there was a dot 
 over it, and to his Honor and Mr. Want indicated what she 
 intended for a dot. Counsel declared that no dot was visible ; but 
 his Honor said that he could see what the witness meant. There 
 was an enlargement of a tail of a " g " into which the dot had run. 
 
 Mr. Want examined the Respondent about Coninoham's visit 
 to Fairfield. How long had she arrived on the scene before her 
 husband? The witness reflected. Mr. Want: "You arrived on 
 a Friday?" Witness: "He arrived on a Sunday!" She could 
 not fix the date very well it was a few days after the 2oth ; before 
 she received the letters that so astonished her. The Petitioner 
 had, before these letters arrived, been once to the place while she 
 was there Yes, once ! The hand-writing was like that of her 
 husband (examining a document handed to her by Counsel). No ! 
 she would not be astonished to learn that Coningham had written 
 it in Court. Mr. Want then requested his Honor to draw the 
 attention of the Jury to the words " If I bring " (in exhibit ' H '') 
 so that they might be compared with words in another document
 
 182 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 

 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 i8 3 
 
 [The Letter-Card of the 19th February from Coningham to Miller referring to the 
 ~" Wire" of the 18th.}
 
 184 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 (Exhibit " K ") the one containing the admitted hand-writing of 
 the Petitioner, and the other the hand-writing which he denied to 
 be his. [The Jury examined both letters.] The witness, having 
 considered for some time, said that she went to Miller's on the 
 22nd February, a Friday. Her husband visited the place on the 
 24th a Sunday. 
 
 Mr. Want (to his Honor) : Exhibit 
 " G," your Honor (the postcard which 
 they say is a forgery) is dated the 25th ; 
 and exhibit " H," about the " oysters 
 and stout," and " shout," is registered 
 on the ayth the date, as usual, is no 
 good you can't read it (to the Re- 
 spondent). He was up there on Sun- 
 day, and on Monday there was posted 
 this registered letter. 
 
 Respondent : I didn't get it until the 
 Wednesday night. 
 
 And when did you get ill ? Wednes- 
 day night. 
 
 But they had to go to the post for 
 them ? That isn't far. 
 
 When did you leave there ? On the 
 Saturday. 
 
 You know I read you that letter yes- 
 terday about " If you'll deny the 
 Arnold letter and postcard, so will I. 
 I will say I thought it was 
 like your hand-writing, but knowing 
 nobody named Mabel I thought it was 
 a joke. ... I will be at Taylr r's 
 on Monday morning if you want me to 
 strike the Jury. ... I am sending 
 ths priscriptions to show tha f I have 
 been ill. ... I never was wi h 
 Dr. O'Haran on those afternoons 
 ' Zero ' speaks of ; but adultry followed 
 on those very nights. . . My 
 
 dress was green velvet with pink roses. 
 
 . . Wri'e an anonymous letter to 
 Miss F. H.. telling her if she goes 
 against ' Conny ' the writer will expose 
 -her doings. . . , Don't fidget, 
 and don't be doing wrong and 
 apologising. . . . Don't be so will 
 ing not to object. . , . The harp 
 
 in the box. The nuns made it for 
 him. . . ." And then there's the 
 postscript: "Tell the truth. Don't 
 understand what I wrote this afternoon 
 it is risky, I could not deny my 
 hand-writing ; they might make me do 
 it." You hear that ? Yes. 
 
 Now, what about "Zero?" You 
 said yesterday you knew something 
 about the name ? Yes. 
 
 What do you know ? I have seen it 
 somewhere ; that's all, In the paper, I 
 think. 
 
 Have you seen the name "Zero" 
 before? I have seen it in the personal 
 column of the newspapers frequently. 
 
 What did you see? I can't re- 
 member. 
 
 Do you remember everything you 
 see? No; I remembered that while I 
 was at Fairfield I saw some ' ' Zero ' ' 
 making an appointment for several 
 days running. 
 
 Funny, wasn't it, someone else 
 picked on " Zero " also. Did you ever 
 write this, " You deny paying Mrs. 
 
 ; always did. It was on a visit, 
 
 and I only made her presents. I will 
 go to Taylor's in the morning. Let me 
 know by telephone to him if you want 
 me to strike the Jury. I will send 
 ' Zero's ' letter by to-night ?" Will 
 you swear you never wrote it? Yes, I 
 never wrote it. 
 
 It is like your writing ? Very like. 
 It's exactly like, and I never wrote a 
 word of it. 
 
 I suppose that is a forgery, too? It 
 is exactly like my writing. 
 
 The witness stated that she had been to the office of a Mr. 
 Taylor (of Dowling and Taylor) ; but her visit had nothing to do 
 with the Jury. She did not know telephone "514" she had no 
 idea of Taylor's number. She was there at a quarter past 10 on 
 last Monday morning (March nth); but she did not see Mr. 
 Taylor. No ! she had never heard of Miss F. H. She did not 
 
 know anyone called F y ; in fact, had never heard of her. (The 
 
 name was here written down and handed to the witness. No, she 
 did not even know her then. It was a common name, and she 
 may have " heard " it.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 Mr. Want : I suppose you did not 
 tell your husband anything about these 
 letters that some silly person was send- 
 ing you, and that if he brought up 03 s- 
 ters to you would you shout?- I never 
 had a conversation with him, 
 
 Then you can't account for him ask- 
 ing all the questions about them ? Yes 
 I can ; I told Mr. Exton. 
 
 When ? A few days ago ; when I 
 came down from Fairfield. 
 
 Did you ever speak to Exton about 
 sending you a registered letter with 
 .3 ?- No. I never knew he sent it. 
 
 Did you know it was a registered 
 letter ? No. 
 
 Did you ever take the trouble to find 
 out at the post office who registered it? 
 No. 
 
 You never inquired at the Fairfield 
 Post Office about it ? No. 
 
 You remember there was a hair in 
 the pen in June, 1900? I remember 
 distinctly taking the hair out of the nib. 
 
 Was it a very rough hair? Just suffi- 
 cient to smear it. 
 
 It was the same ink you were writing 
 with? --Yes. 
 
 Did you ever see a hair scratch the 
 paper and make an erasure like that ? 
 No. 
 
 Hold it up to the light, Do you see 
 what your hair has done ? It is just as 
 I did it. 
 
 You swear you did not alter the date ? ' 
 I will swear it's exactly as I wrote it. 
 
 You did not alter or erase it ? No, 
 it is exactly as it left me. 
 
 The paper was never scratched ? 
 No ; I never did it. 
 
 I suppose it's needless mv asking you 
 if you hadn't October 2 there and al- 
 tered it ? No, I didn't scratch out any- 
 thing. If I wanted to scratch it out I'd 
 re-write the whole letter, 
 
 While the Case was pending last time, 
 or just before it came on, did you re- 
 ceive a statement from your husband 
 stating the questions he was going to 
 ask, and did you send a statement re- 
 vising it and altering his Case for him ? 
 
 No, I never received it. 
 
 Were you just before the trial came 
 on last time at Abigail's office ? Yes. 
 Abigail was your husband's solicitor ? 
 
 He was. 
 
 How many days before the last trial 
 came on? I think I was there about 
 the second week in November. About 
 a fortnight before the trial. 
 
 Were you there more than once? 
 Only once. 
 
 Continuing the cross-examination, Mr. Want again asked 
 Mrs. Coningham if she did not receive, either from Abigail or from 
 someone in his office, a certain document. No, the Respondent 
 said that she had never received it. No, not from anyone ! She 
 remembered at the former trial, as in the second, fixing upon the 
 iyth March (St. Patrick's Day), 1900, as one of the dates of her 
 misconduct with the Co-respondent. The Witness did not think 
 that she fixed the time as 7.30 p.m. (the Doctor leaving for the 
 concert at a quarter to eight o'clock) it was just after half-past 
 seven. No, she did not consider that at the former trial the ten or 
 twelve witnesses who were called to testify against that statement 
 succeeded in proving the Doctor to have been at the Town Hall all 
 the time up to half-past ten. Asked by the Counsel how many 
 times she was examined as to the 2gth June the witness replied 
 that she swore "conditionally" on every occasion. Statements 
 made by her concerning other dates were not sworn to 
 "conditionally." "Ah!" said Mr. Want, "are you unhappy 
 about that date? "No; but I'm uncertain about the hour. 
 You made me swear it was before six." " H'm, the 3Oth April ?" 
 the witness was not sure about the hour. Counsel had no doubt 
 of it. The Respondent stated that she had company with her on 
 the 3Oth April, and could prove, therefore, that the date was 
 correct. It was the very last Sunday before the performance of
 
 ;j86 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 /Ij^X^f 09* 
 
 '<- 
 
 ^c/^u-^^3 /*-~0-a-yt> <in^ wt 
 
 VM-tfCu*. b- 
 
 /& /fl/^ 
 
 [Coningham's Instructions to Body Guard, written in Court, to find Mrs. B .] 
 
 the Passion Play which was given three days later. Yes, she 
 remembered the Judge at the former hearing telling the Jury that 
 if she were untruthful as regarded the date of the 2gth June there 
 was an end to the Case. The witness denied that the day previously 
 she had, in answer to the Petitioner, said she went to get married 
 in Brisbane, but the priest would not perform the ceremony ; and 
 that she had got into a certain condition, and had again gone and 
 attempted to get married. Mr. Want, continuing, asked the 
 witness if by that she meant she had allowed herself to be seduced 
 on purpose to get married. No ! witness declared that she had 
 never told anyone such a thing. She never told the Petitioner that 
 if Unmack got her in a certain condition Father Fouhy would 
 marry them. She was never at Unmack's as a servant. Her 
 father had a pension for long service, and the badges that accom- 
 panied it. The Respondent then said she was living with her 
 sister at the time she gave birth to Unmack's illegitimate child. 
 She went under the name of Mrs. Rogers, about for four months 
 before the child was born ; but she did not dress as a widow until 
 some time afterwards she put on widow's weeds after the death 
 .of the child. No! she was not known as the "Black Angel." 
 Mourning was not assumed on account of the death of the child 
 Unmack (the father of the child) had gone to America. She began
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 187" 
 
 work at the canteen after her father's death and about eighteen 
 months after the death of her illegitimate child. Four months 
 before the latter died she took the name of Mrs. Rogers ; but did 
 not pass under that name. About a month or so before the child 
 died, the witness said that she represented herself as a widow ; 
 and eighteen months after its death she became connected with the- 
 canteen. One of the reasons that she called herself a widow was 
 her connection with the canteen. She had sworn this at the last 
 trial. Until after her father had died she was not being paid for 
 her work in this connection. Her mother was always in charge 
 when her father was not at the barracks. She admitted that she 
 had, at the previous hearing of the Case, sworn to the following : 
 
 " I represented myself as Mrs. Rogers. I was about seventeen years of age- 
 then. The name and the widow's weeds were not adopted altogether for 
 purposes of business, they were adopted for business purposes because I used 
 to assist sometimes at the canteen. My mother was in charge. I had to 
 do the books, go in and out, and meet the people. My mother thought I 
 ousfht to act sensibly like a woman." 
 
 Mr. Want remarked, somewhat sarcastically, that witness was- 
 only seventeen years of age, and was yet passing as a widow ! 
 Witness, with emphasis, said No! What she asserted was that 
 she was seventeen years of age when she wore widow's weeds. 
 The child, when it died, was only a few months old. She never 
 told her husband (Coningham) anything. She never told him 
 that she masqueraded as a widow for business purposes. She 
 might have informed him that she took the name of Mrs. Rogers 
 for business purposes. She wore widow's weeds for a few months 
 onh not close up to the time she was married. Her marriage 
 with the Petitioner took place some six years after the child died. 
 Coningham went to England the very day he and witness were 
 married (March nth, 1893) by a curious coincidence, the eighth 
 anniversary of this wedding was the day set down for the second 
 hearing of the Case : 
 
 Mr. Want: You said yesterday that dispensation granted according to ihe 
 
 Father Fouhy refused to marry you ? Roman Catholic Church, everything 
 
 Petitioner : She did not say that. 8 ot ready, and that you then went to 
 
 She denied it, your Honor. th ~ Presbytery with him? Yes, I got 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you know Father ' he Papers-he did not ! He refused 
 
 p . 1H9 J to get married in the Church. 
 
 Is it not true that three different se's 
 
 Witness : les . o f witnesses were ready to witness the 
 
 Did he not refuse to marry you to marriage that night ? I never saw a 
 
 Coningham ? Xo, Mr. Coningham witness 
 
 refused to let me marry him in that You see that declaration and dis- 
 
 Church. pensation ? Yes; I don't remember 
 
 Is it not a fact that the papers for seeing them before 
 
 the marriage were all prepared, the You don't ? No ! 
 
 SOLICITOR HIRAM ASA MOSS IS CALLED. 
 
 Mr. Want, at this stage of the proceedings, informed his 
 Honor that he wished to call Hiram Asa Moss (who formerly acted 
 for the Petitioner) to produce certain documents. Mr. Moss had
 
 1 88 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 been subpoenaed for this purpose. Mr. Moss then walked up to 
 the Barristers' Table and said, addressing his Honor, that he had 
 been subpoenaed to produce certain documents ; but he had only 
 those which came into his possession, and he would hand them 
 over if directed by the Judge so to do. Mr. Justice Owen said 
 that he did not know what Mr. Moss had been called for. Mr. 
 Want explained that he was called for the purpose of producing 
 the statement signed by Coningham. It had been sent by him to 
 Mrs. Coningham for revision as to the evidence she would give. 
 Counsel also called upon Mr. Moss to produce Mrs. Coningham's 
 " revised " edition a document sent by her to Mr. Moss revising 
 Coningham's statement. It was the key to the evidence, and was 
 executed in a type-written copy. The Petitioner interjected that 
 these papers comprised the evidence relative in his Case at the last 
 trial. His Honor reminded the Petitioner that he had sworn that 
 such documents did not exist. Coningham endeavoured to explain 
 that he spoke of his revised statement. Mr. Moss was his solicitor 
 in the first Case up to a certain point. His Honor said that he 
 must get Mr. Moss's answer first he was called upon to produce 
 certain documents. The Solicitor, Moss, said to His Honor that 
 he would produce certain documents if the Judge ordered him so 
 to do. These papers came in his (Moss's) possession when he 
 formerly appeared for Coningham, and after his withdrawal from 
 the Case he continued to hold the documents. Mr. Want said that 
 he wished his Honor to ask Mr. Moss whether it were not a fact 
 that he had made overtures to the Prothonotary, or the Court, as 
 to what he should do with the papers in question. Unless this 
 were mentioned his Honor might desire to know how Mr. Want's 
 side was aware that Moss held certain documents. His Honor 
 declined to take the statement in this manner. Mr. Want then 
 suggested that his Honor should question Mr. Moss on the 
 matter. The Judge said that such a course would not be fair. 
 Mr. Moss was not on oath, and if he (Mr. Justice Owen) questioned 
 him, Coningham could not cross-examine Moss on his answers. 
 
 Mr. Want: I should like your the evidence, correcting some statement 
 
 Honor to hear me as to this ? which he was going to get her to make, 
 
 "His Honor: Oh, yes. revising it, in fact. He swore that he 
 
 Mr. Want : Mr. Moss was acting in never had such a document in his life, 
 
 the matter as Coningham's solicitor that it never was in his possession, and 
 
 not as Mrs. Coningham's. If under had never existed. He refused to give 
 
 these circumstances, a document comes mean order for it on the ground that 
 
 into his possession, which is nothing to it had never existed. If that is the 
 
 do with him at all, and the Petitioner case, Mr. Coningham had nothing to 
 
 says he knows nothing about it do with that document. If Mr. Moss 
 
 Petitioner: I don't. One document, has received some document from Mrs. 
 
 I don't. Coningham, that Coningham knows 
 
 Mr. Want: I am tails ing now of nothing whatever about, and Coning- 
 
 Mrs Coningham's statement the bam doesn't know, and Coningham has 
 
 statement which I was asking him if he never seen, how could Mr. Coningham 
 
 would swear he had not in his posses- say that it is his document, pr that he 
 
 sion ; the document which was in Mrs. has given it to Mr. Moss ? Suppose 
 
 Coningham's hand-writing ; the key of that a man was on his trial for murder,
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 and somebody - say his wife sends a 
 confession of the whole of his guilt to a 
 solicitor. In that confession she sets 
 out the whole of the facts of the Case. 
 Suppose the solicitor was acting for the 
 criminal, if you like ; or suppose Mr. 
 Moss was defending a person charged 
 with murder, and an outside witness 
 wrota to him s lying that the accused 
 did commit the murder, giving particu- 
 lars as to when and how it was done, 
 .and persons who were looking on 
 -could I not, that being so, call upon 
 him to produce it. If Mr. Coningham 
 had admitted its existence, then it 
 might b2 different, though I won't even 
 admit that it would even then, but he 
 
 would not even admit that. He stated 
 that it had never existed. Surely there 
 is no protection then, your Honor, to a 
 solicitor holding a document which a 
 man says isn't his, doesn't exist, and he 
 knows nothing about. Even if the 
 document is not read in Court, it is 
 evidence alone to show that he has not 
 spoken the truth in saying that it didn't 
 exist. Your Honor may by-and-bye 
 say that. I can put it in ; but to es- 
 tablish the fact of its existence, I say I 
 am entitled now to ask Mr. Moss to 
 prove it by producing it. I may re- 
 mind your Honor at the same time that 
 Mrs. Coningham has also denied it. 
 
 I WANT TO PUNISH THIS WOMAN. 
 
 The Petitioner: I have denied, your 
 Honor, that I ever received any such 
 document not that it ever existed, 
 and that there was no document of the 
 kind in existence that ever came to me. 
 Mr Moss says he has it. Then I say 
 it is my property. Mrs. Coningham 
 may write anything she likes. How 
 could I possibly know what she had 
 written ? For all I know she may be 
 in league with Mr. Slattery, to prevent 
 me from gaining this case. For not 
 only am I bringing the Co-respondent 
 to this Court to punish him, but / am 
 bringing this woman here to punish her 
 Also. I come here to get a divorce from 
 my wife. / come here to punish this 
 livman as well as this man. Why should 
 Mr. Want have any documents that 
 were in the last Case ? He has no 
 aright to my private papers. I don't 
 know what Mrs. Coningham may do. 
 She may be acting against me, and for 
 the other side. She may be in league 
 with the other side. They are simply 
 making out that she is now helping me. 
 J wish to puuish her as well as the man that 
 has ruined her. I served Mr. Moss with 
 .an order for my papers. I made a 
 formal order on him for them, but he 
 refused to give them, or rather he said 
 there were no papers. What is in his 
 hands belonging to me has nothing 
 to do with opposing Counsel. Mr. 
 Moss, when he gets my formal 
 order for the papers, says there are 
 none in existence, and now he comes 
 into Court and says this is the revised 
 edition of my statement. 
 
 Mr. Moss: That's not true. 
 
 Peationer : There is matter in the 
 papers that I don't wish the Co- 
 
 respondent to know. I say I never 
 received the paper from Mrs. Coning- 
 ham. 
 
 His Honor: If the Petitioner had 
 bsen asked about the two documents, 
 and admitted they were his own, and 
 had dealt with them, I do not think 
 that a solicitor should be called upon 
 to produce them. But both the Peti- 
 tioner and Mrs. Coningham denied all 
 knowledge of them Mr. Want asked 
 the Petitioner to give him an order for 
 the papers, and Mr. Coningham re- 
 fused, because the documents were not 
 in existence. It appears to me that 
 the document must be produced ; but 
 it is another question how far it may go 
 in evidence. That question is not 
 before me now. There are only the 
 two documents. 
 
 Mr. Moss : Which documents does 
 your Honor msan ? 
 
 His Honor : The documents referred 
 to are a statement sent by Mr. Coning- 
 ham to Mrs. Coningham for revision, 
 and also the document from Mrs. 
 Coningham revising the last document 
 
 Mr. Moss : I produce the statement 
 first. 
 
 Petitioner: That is my statement. 
 I said so in the box. It is my revised 
 statement. I stated that Mr. Moss 
 had my revised statement. Will Mr. 
 Moss go into the box and swear that 
 that statement was as sent by me to 
 Mrs. Coningham ? 
 
 His Honor : .There is no question 
 now of putting the documents in. It is 
 merely to have them in Court. It may 
 be a very grave question whether they 
 shall go in evidence. 
 
 Mr. Moss : I produce two documents.
 
 i go 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 setting forth Arthur Coningham's facts. 
 One is written and the other type- 
 written. 
 
 His Honor : Is the type-written one 
 signed by him. 
 
 Mr. Moss : No, your Honor. 
 
 Mr. Want : Petitioner was asked 
 about the type-written one. 
 
 His Honor admitted the production 
 of the document. 
 
 Mr. Moss : One is the copy in Mr. 
 Coningham's writing, and the other is 
 type-written. I produce them. 
 
 His Honor : Another document was 
 asked for. 
 
 Mr. Moss : I produce the revision by 
 Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 Petitioner : Purporting to be ? 
 
 His Honor : Mr. Moss is not a wit- 
 ness in the Case at all. He is simply 
 producing documents. 
 
 Petitioner : In bringing these state- 
 ments into Court, will Mr. Moss state 
 
 whether they came from me or frorr 
 Mrs. Coningham ? 
 
 Mr. Moss : I will state nothing. 
 
 His Honor : You can put him in the 
 box. He is merely a witness to pro' 
 duce now. If you want to make him 
 a witness you can call him yourself. 
 
 Petitioner : May I summons himin, 
 Chambers for my papers ? 
 
 His Honor : I cannot give you advice 
 There are plenty of professional ad-- 
 visers to tell you. 
 
 Mr. Want (to Mrs. Coningham) : 
 Look at this document. Did you ever 
 see it before ? No. 
 
 Do you recognise the hand-writing ? 
 No ; I never wrote it. 
 
 You swear you never wrote it ? No;. 
 I never wrote it. 
 
 Petitioner : There is other witnesses' 
 evidence in those papers, and it has no- 
 right to be published, your Honor. 
 
 His Honor : The documents are not 
 in evidence. No one has a right to 
 see them till they become evidence. 
 
 THAT "REVISED CONFESSION." 
 
 Mr. Want (to witness) : " You take 
 this one in your husband's writing. 
 Look at page one. Did you write this 
 " Mabel was born on gth May, not 
 Kjth May?" No, 
 
 Is " Mabel born igth May" there? 
 Yes. I wrote a statement to give one 
 to my own solicitor, but this is not it. 
 
 Do you see this there, "Dr. O'H. 
 was sent for, for tickets for the concert 
 at the Opera House?" Is " Opera 
 House" there? "Opera House" is 
 here. 
 
 And you didn't write " the concert 
 was at the Town Hall not the Opera 
 House ?" No, 
 
 Look at page 5. Do you see any- 
 thing there about cushions ? Doesn't 
 it say he committed on the cushions 
 in the Cardinal's room ? Did you 
 say "Don't say anything about the 
 cushions ?" No. 
 
 Look at page 6. What are the words 
 you are reported to have come out of 
 Church and said ? " He said "What's 
 the matter ?" and I said, " I've got fear- 
 ful pains in the bowels." Most of that 
 is struck out. 
 
 Did you write this : " Don't dare to 
 sav I had fearful pains in the bowels ?" 
 NJ. I did not. 
 
 Look at page 12. Dr, O'Haran was- 
 asked, "Didn't you attend Kelly in his 
 dying hours, and didn't he die sud- 
 denly ?" Isn't it written there: "Kelly, 
 who knew of the fernery, was attended) 
 by O'H. in his dying hours ?" Yes. 
 
 Did you write this : " I find Kelly was : 
 not attended by O'H., but by another ; 
 O'H. buried him ?" No ; Inever wrote 
 that. 
 
 Mr. Want said he had not had time- 
 to go through the documents then, but 
 if his Honor would allow him he would 
 do so at 2 o'clock (Turning to the 
 Respondent) : ' ' Now I will ask you 
 again. You see this is written on an- 
 envelope (showing her an envelope) ?" 
 Yes. 
 
 And this ? I swear positively I 
 didn't write either of them, so there is- 
 no need for me to look at them. 
 
 Mr. Want asked to be allowed to- 
 tender certain documents after he had 
 gone through them between i and z 
 o'clock. "I don't want to run any 
 risk," he added. 
 
 Petitioner : What do you mean by 
 "risk?" 
 
 Mr. Want : The risk of a new trial, 
 or anything of that sort. 
 
 His Honor : You can't tender them- 
 in your own cross-examination.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. igi 
 
 Mr. Want then resumed the main thread of his cross-examina- 
 tion. In answer to Counsel, witness deposed that at the time she 
 went to Abigail's office she was living at " Valliscourt," Darling- 
 hurst Road. But was she not mistaken ? Yes, she was living at 
 Paddington, where she lived then (the i4th March). She had been 
 living at Paddington from that up to the present time. She would 
 not swear how many times her husband had been there up to the 
 date of the first hearing ; she did not think he had been there once. 
 She had resided with the Connachies for nearly a month before the 
 trial. She pretended that she did not understand Counsel when he 
 asked how many times since the trial, or while the Case was pend- 
 ing day by day, did he call at her house. Mr. Want, more em- 
 phatically, " How many times was he up there, whether you saw 
 him or not ? How many times was he up there during the fort- 
 night while the Case was on ?" The witness did not remember 
 that he had called at all. She would not like to swear that he had 
 not been there, but she did not remember him coming at al 1 .Since 
 the first trial Coningham had not always called at her house once 
 a week. He came during the last days of the trial, or just after 
 she thought it was immediately after. On an average her husband 
 had heen to the house while she was living there hardly once a 
 week. He would be a fortnight without calling. He usually came 
 in the morning, took the children out, and brought them home 
 again. Counsel understood her to say that on no single occasion 
 had she held any communication with him Well, she had to speak 
 to him about the children, but he would not answer her. She had 
 no conversation at all with him, except to ask him for money, or 
 speak to him about the children. They could not have been putting 
 their heads together about the trial, for she was never alone once 
 with him. Witness had sent the Petitioner no communications she 
 had received slips from him ; just " please receive " so much. While 
 at Mrs. Abraham's, Coningham and herself had occupied the same 
 bedroom, oh, yes ! From the i2th September until the Petitioner 
 left this course had been followed. He left the house more than 
 two days before her. After leaving, he came back, paid up, and 
 left. She might have remained a week with Mrs. Abraham after 
 Coningham left the house. She never, before the petition was 
 served on her, informed Mrs. Abraham that she expected soon to 
 come in for 5,000 the amount laid by the Petitioner as damages. 
 Oh, yes, she had had a few words with Mrs. Abraham, of which 
 she never spoke before because she had never been asked ; but she 
 left on good terms with the lady. 
 
 Mr. Want: Will you swear you did Petitioner: I asked her that yester- 
 
 not tell her you expected to come into day. 
 
 ^5,000, but you did not know whether His Honor : And she denied it 
 
 it might be in a week or a little longer ? Counsel can cross-examine. 
 
 The witness knew that Mrs. Abraham had given evidence at 
 the last trial. Respondent had never told her anything about get- 
 ting ^5,000 nothing like it. After leaving Mrs. Abraham's she
 
 IQ2 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 went to Mrs. Bray's. She did not know who took the rooms there ; 
 she did not take them herself, perhaps " Conny" did, although he 
 never told her that he had. When he paid the bill he took the 
 children, and told her where they were to go. He scarcely spoke 
 to her. He never told her that he had taken rooms, but he gave 
 her the address he went himself to some other place. That was 
 after the petition had been served - which was on the 28th Septem- 
 ber. After this they had not necessarily to separate. Coningham 
 had to look after his children ; she (the Respondent) was not going 
 to try and get on with the whole lot of them. Up to the date of the 
 serving of the petition, and the writing of the confession, and the 
 tlate she left. Abraham's, they had not all the while occupied the 
 same bedroom. They had to share a bedroom at Miller's until 
 another became vacant but that was not all the time they were 
 there. From May to the i3th June they had apparently occup'ed 
 the same bedroom ; but she had her sister's room next. Yes, she 
 swore at the previous trial that they occupied the same bedroom, 
 but Coningham used sometimes to go into another. Her next 
 place of residence was Stanmore, where she was ill. Yes, she 
 had sworn at the previous trial, " My husband occupied the same 
 room with me at Fairfield." When the witness went to Mrs. Bray's, 
 Coningham went to live at Jesmond Place. While at Bray's he 
 had stopped with her on three occasions (only three). On two of 
 those nights it was pouring with rain. 
 
 Mr. Want : The poor fellow was not On the other occasion was it too dry? 
 
 to go out in the wet. Was that it ? No. I do not know the reason. 
 Yes. 
 
 The witness had recently lived at Connachie's she was living 
 there then. When she spoke to Exton a few days before, he said 
 nothing at all about a registered letter. Respondent then denied 
 to Counsel that she had ever sent the following letter from Fair- 
 field : 
 
 "Mr. Miller has got some help, and we shall have no sale. Had I better 
 come down next Thursday, or will it do in a week to see Mrs. O'H. and baby ? 
 You had better write at once and let me know. Annie's 53. is due on Wednesday, 
 and then I have not a penny. So send me some Mrs. Arnold, care Miller ; and 
 if the ' Burwah ' is in I can spend the ^5 on myself and babies." 
 
 Oh! yes ; in answer to Mr. Want, it must have been written 
 by someone who knew a lot about her. Respondent had no idea 
 who ki Mrs. O'H." was. " Annie" was a nursegirl her name was 
 " Anna," not " Annie." Counsel then showed the witness the paper 
 marked " E," beginning " I sent you a wire yesterday to meet me 
 at Fairfield Station," and asked if it were not in her husband's hand- 
 writing. Mrs. Coningham had scruples about identifying the hand- 
 writing as the Petitioner's. She did not know Exton's hand-writing. 
 Oh, yes ! She put the name, "Mrs. Arnold," on her luggage when 
 she went to Fairfield. Witness stated that she received letters from 
 nobody till her husband came up on the Sunday and stopped all 
 day ; then on Wednesday she got two letters, from whom she did
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 193 
 
 not Uuotv. She was acquainted with no " Mabel " who would write 
 to her. She received letters addressed to her as " Mrs. Arnold," 
 the name she selected to go under. Witness did not sit at dinner 
 with her husband ; although she had gone out in the vineyard to 
 pick grapes with him and three or four more. [It is more probable 
 that " dates " were the fruit the Respondent and the Petitioner went 
 out to pick together.] The others were Exton, Gallagher, and the 
 three young Coninghams. The time occupied in this viticultural 
 pursuit was about ten minutes. Yes, there was a little packing- 
 shed with some bushes on it, the witness admitted, in the centre of 
 the broad walk that divides the vineyard ; but she certainly never 
 sat in it with her husband, for the good and sufficient reason that 
 there was nothing upon which to sit. Indeed, she was not in the 
 shed at all. Mr. Gallagher was one of the six present at Fairfield 
 the night of the alleged drugging. She believed that he lived in the 
 neighbourhood ; though she really did not know for certain. He 
 was not there when she arrived, and he was not stopping in the 
 house. The housekeeper was named Mrs. Marquet. Witness 
 said that she had a glass and a half of wine that night nothing 
 more. It was colonial port, at a shilling a bottle. She did not 
 know where the six persons lived who were present that night. 
 She named them. One was the housekeeper, Mrs. Marquet ; and 
 one was Mr. Gallagher's niece. Mr. Miller was also there his 
 name was "William," not "Fred." She did not know that her 
 husband called him "Fred," although she admitted seeing the letter- 
 card in which Coningham addressed him as " Dear Fred." Yes, 
 she had no stout on that night ; because there was none to have. 
 On the following morning witness did not tell Mrs. Marquet, the 
 housekeeper, that she (Mrs. Coningham) had had a little too much, 
 that somebody had got her letters ; but that they could be of use to 
 no one because they were signed only " Mabel." Mr. Want then 
 handed up a document, asking Respondent whose hand-writing it 
 was in. She did not know ; swore it was not hers. The letter 
 was marked for identification, and Counsel's cross-examination of 
 the Respondent was concluded. 
 
 THE PETITIONER'S FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONDENT. 
 
 Coningham then began his re-examination of the Respondent. 
 He opened on the old theme of April the ist and 3oth ; and the 
 lime, placed between i and 6 o'clock. The Respondent said that 
 she could not remember the number of the cab, and went on to say 
 that the steps she had referred to at the Cardinal's Hall were very 
 old, and of wood. She had not been there since the place was re- 
 novated. In answer to Petitioner, she stated that she knew a man 
 named Exton, and had seen Coningham in his company at different 
 places where she was then living, at Fairfield, in Brisbane, and 
 in the city of Sydney ; but he had never handed her a letter sup- 
 posed to have come from the Petitioner. Exton had given her 
 money in an envelope addressed " Mrs. Coningham." Never had
 
 THE COXINGHAM CASE. 
 
 she given Exioit 
 any letters for de- 
 livery to Coning- 
 ham. He was at 
 Miller's when the 
 Petitioner was- 
 there. Yes, she 
 had seen letters 
 apparently in her 
 hand-writing ;but 
 she had sworn 
 positively that 
 none of them 
 were hers. Mr. 
 ^7 Want interjected 
 "You don't mean 
 : those addressed 
 ^ to Miss Shiel?" 
 ThePetitioner 
 O} said, " No, those 
 are hers !" Turn- 
 :S ing to the Re- 
 jb spondent, Con- 
 ^ ingham wanted 
 | to know what 
 "> ailed her father 
 during the time 
 o she was in Bris- 
 g bane. She repli- 
 ed, " Rheumatic 
 gout!" He was 
 periodically con- 
 fined to his bed 
 with it, and dur- 
 i, ing these periods 
 the witness went 
 to the canteen for 
 him. She was not 
 forced to go; nei- 
 ther was she paid 
 for going. The 
 Government was 
 the virtual em- 
 ployer, but she 
 was engaged 
 direct through 
 Colonel French. 
 Coming to the 
 marriage episode
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 195 
 
 at St. Francis' Church, Paddington, the Respondent said 
 that Cohintfharri refused to sign some papers before the ceremony, 
 swearing to bring up his prospective children in the Roman Catholic 
 Church. Harking away to Fairfield, the Petitioner asked the Re- 
 spondent whether, on the last occasion she was there, Miller told 
 her he had received money to stay the sale. The witness said that 
 he had. "Did he say how much?" pursued Coningham. Mr. 
 Want objected to the amount ; and his Honor remarked that they 
 could not have what Miller said. Mr. Want interjected with marked 
 sarcasm, " Let him bring ' Dear Fred' here." The Petitioner then 
 wished to know where Miller went on the day the Respondent was 
 taken ill. Counsel said, "Never mind where he went!" The 
 witness stated that Miller had left the house on that day. Peti- 
 tioner continued, "When did the sale take place?" Mr. Want, 
 " Don't answer that !" Mrs. Coningham said that Miller went to 
 Sydney on the day before the sale, which was set down for Wednes- 
 day. He went to Sydney on Wednesday and got a promise of 
 
 money, and on Thursday he went to Sydney Mr. Want here 
 
 interrupted the witness. She could not say that. The Petitioner 
 wanted to know where Miller got the money ; but Counsel warned 
 witness not to answer. She, however, began, " I know he 
 
 gave " Mr. Want then said, "Mrs. Coningham, I told you 
 
 not to answer. You are very anxious to give evidence." [Peti- 
 tioner then dragged his examination of the Respondent backwards 
 and forwards all over the Case, with continual objections from 
 Counsel. He (Coningham) wanted his little boy, " Artie," as;ed 
 six years, called. Did the witness hold a conversation with Mrs. 
 Marquet. Did Mrs. Marquet tell witness anything ? (objection 
 by Counsel) Did Miller tell witness anything ? (objection by 
 Counsel). Was witness intoxicated on a certain night at Fairfield? 
 she denied the soft impeachment. Did Moss ever call upon her ; 
 did she ever call upon Moss ; did Moss ever write a letter to her ; 
 did Abigail ever call upon her ; did Abigail ever write to her ? 
 (objection by Counsel ; the letter should be produced). Did witness 
 know a party by the name of Grimshaw ; did Grimshaw ever try to 
 get witness to do anything? (objection by Counsel). Did she re- 
 ceive a letter from one Henry James ; was she ever asked not to 
 answer the petition after having been served with it ? (objection 
 by Counsel). Did Henry James write to her ; had she the letter ; 
 would she produce it ? (Counsel interrupted that the Petitioner 
 was only wasting time. This was not evidence). And so on, and 
 so on. Mrs. Coningham's "yes" or " no" is immaterial. Prac- 
 tically Coningham had shot his bolt. The witness left the box, and 
 obtained also his Honor's permission to leave the Court. The 
 Petitioner then proceeded with the examination of his witnesses. 
 
 THE HALL BOY'S EVIDENCE. 
 
 Edward O'Brien, Presbytery boy at St. Mary's Cathedral, was 
 tailed by Coningham, who evidently thoughthehad a strong witness
 
 196 THE COMNGHAM CASE. 
 
 The lad deposed that thtf duties that devolved upon him were 
 the answering- of the door, to go messages when required to do so, 
 waiting, setting the table, and other light duties. He shared the 
 responsibility of opening the door with the deceased John Kelly. 
 When both of them were engaged, Miss Hennessy attended to the 
 door. The witness had no especial thoughts objective or sub- 
 jective. He delivered a message given him by John Kelly that 
 was all. He really forgot if Mrs. Coningham had a child with her,, 
 but he recollected seeing- her in the precincts of the Cathedral, 
 Mrs. Coningham had no one with her ; but he recollected seeing 
 her in the reception-room ot the Presbytery. John Kelly had told 
 him to say that Mrs. Coningham was there, and wanted her baby 
 christened. When he was half-way down stairs, John Kelly had: 
 told him that the child was already baptized, and Mrs. Coningham' 
 simply wanted the Doctor to see it. His message ran thus : 
 '' Please Dr. O'Haran, Mrs. Coningham wants you to see the baby. " 
 Kelly told him to say this. Dr. O'Haran said to him (O'Brien) that 
 he was engaged and would not be down for ten minutes He told 
 this to Mrs. Coningham. (Mr. Want objected to the line of exami- 
 nation. The lad was Petitioner's own witness). His Honor also- 
 objected. The Petitioner could not cross-examine his own witness. 
 Coningham said that the witness's evidence was contradictory. 
 'I he Judge, emphatically, "It is not !" O'Brien, continuing, he- 
 had seen the Respondent at St. Mary's only three or four times 
 once she came to the Cathedral for Miss Shiel. He (O'Brien) let 
 her in on each occasion. He had seen her in the Cathedral tower 
 with Father Barry and some other ladies. He never remembered 
 taking a note from Mrs. Coningham to Dr. O'Haran he would 
 swear to that ! When the Contingent went away she did not come 
 in at all. No ! Dr. O'Haran did not give him a message to tl e 
 effect that Mrs. Coningham was not to go on with " such nonsense" 
 when he asked him to come and see Respondent's baby. He told 
 him (O'Brien) not to go on with such nonsense. The Petitioner 
 badgered this witness with great persistence, but could ^et no- 
 corroborative evidence from him. 
 
 O'BRII'N CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. WANT. 
 
 In answer to Mr. Want, witness deposed that a priest was told 
 off every week to christen children, and on the day in question Mr>. 
 Coningham's baby was brought up to be christened. When ladies 
 connected with the various guilds came to St. Mary's they saw Dr. 
 O'Haran, either in the office or in the waiting-room. It was not 
 at all an unusual thing for ladies to go to Dr. O'Haran's office. 
 They were there the whole day and evening in connection with 
 church matters. O'Brien had seen Miss Shiel there more often 
 than Miss Sutherland or Mrs. Coningham. Even ihe people who 
 came about deaths, births, and marriages, go to Dr. O'Haran's 
 office, and there was always some responsible nerscn on duty to 
 attend to them. All the priests used the office. They were con-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 197 
 
 tinually in and out of it. The first Sunday in the month was pro- 
 cession Sunday, and the ladies who look part in this sacred func- 
 tion used part of the Cardinal's Hall, up to 7 p.m., as a dressing- 
 room. When the procession was over they went back to disrobe, 
 and were all out of the Hall at about half-past eight o'clock. The 
 lights were always burning until the last of the ladies had gone 
 say from 6*30 to 8-30 p.m. The jets were incandescent, and had 
 to be lighted by a taper. If anyone went from the Church, and out 
 through the southern door, it would be necessary to pass down 
 some steps and along a passage between the Cardinal's Hall and 
 the Cathedral. That passage brought one back again to the 
 southern door and nearly on a level with it. The steps to be tra- 
 versed before arriving at the Cardinal's Hall numbered eighteen or 
 nineteen. O'Brien had seen the former wooden steps, but he did 
 not remember their number. The height was the same, but there 
 were now stone instead of wooden steps. His Honor here asked 
 if there were any plan of the building it was very hard to follow 
 this description. Counsel then produced a plan of the Cathedral 
 and other buildings before the alterations were made, and explained 
 it to his Honor and the Jury. The Judge intimated that it would 
 be well if the Jury visited the locality, as they would then get a 
 much better idea of the place than from a plan. A Juryman sug- 
 gested a visit to the Cathedral at 10 o'clock on the following morn- 
 ing. His Honor agreed to arrange the matter. The Petitioner, 
 interjecting, thought that the architect who carried out the altera- 
 tions ought to go with the Jury to explain them. Mr. Want was 
 quite agreeable to the suggestion, but a Juryman interjected that 
 he thought the man who carried out the alterations had died. Mr. 
 Want said Mr. Barr, who was clerk of works, was living, and 
 could point out the alterations. His Honor asked the Petitioner if 
 there would be any objection to Mr. Barr. Coningham said, none 
 whatever. Then, said his Honor, Mr. Barr would accompany the 
 Jury. Mr. Want said he wanted the Jury to see where there had 
 been an old wall between the fern-house and the Cathedral, and to 
 note that it blocked the way. The Petitioner remarked that he 
 hoped, also, the Jury would inspect the places where the Respon- 
 dent alleged that she and Dr. O'Haran had behaved with impro- 
 priety to wit, the Sacristy, the Cardinal's Hall, upstairs in the 
 hall, and in a little room at the back. Also the Presbytery office 
 on the left, the waiting-room on the right, the Cardinal's Sacristy, 
 and the fern-house. Mr. Want desired the Jury to examine the 
 remains of an old fence apparently dividing the Cardinal's Hall, so 
 that no one could go that way without passing through a gate. 
 
 O'Brien, further examined, stated that the Cardinal's Hall was 
 always open on procession night. In the olden time there was no 
 porch at the southern door to keep out the weather. Anyone in 
 the Cathedral, or about the door, could tell if there were lights in 
 the Cardinal's Hall. Dr. O'Haran took the principal part, with
 
 ig8 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 the Cardinal, in the services held on procession nights. O'Brien 
 remembered a cab coming for the tickets on the night of the con- 
 cert (iyth March, St. Patrick's) ; but he did not know who was in 
 the cab. As far as he (witness) could see, Kelly did not appear to 
 be dying of poisoning. A number of ladies and gentleman were 
 up in the tower of the Cathedral on a certain day. Oh, yes, it was 
 the day when one of the Contingents went away. He (O'Brien), 
 <.'. >ring the whole time he was at the Cathedral, never saw a single 
 act of impropriety between the Doctor and the Respondent em- 
 phatically, " Never." 
 
 THE WITNESS O'BRIEN RE-EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER. 
 
 Coningham now entered with a spurious brand of baffled zeal 
 on a re-examination of the witness. In answer to a series of in- 
 consequential and irrelevant queries by the Petitioner, O'Brien said 
 that he had been lighting the Cardinal's Hall since the death of 
 Kelly on the 2ist March. From the time he lit the gas at 6.30 
 p m., until the time he put it out at 8.30 p.m., he attended Church. 
 He was not engaged in the procession, and there was no occasion 
 for him to go back to the Hall within the times specified. When 
 in Church he sat with his back to the Cardinal's Hall. Oh ! yes, 
 he could distinctly and most emphatically say that the Cardinal's 
 Hall was always lighted up, although he did not go into it between 
 6.30 and 8.30 p.m., and then sat with his back to the apartment. 
 He could see the Hall from the Church if he looked round, and 
 from the Church he had seen it lighted. No one could go into the 
 Hall without having the key; and the gas-meter was about 20 or 30 
 feet from the door. It would take about two minutes to turn the 
 gas off at the meter, walking from the Cardinal's Sacristy to the 
 door. He remembered that when the alterations were being made 
 all round the southern door was boarded up for the choir or the 
 organ. He never saw anybody around the southern door of the 
 Cardinal's Hall when a procession was in progress ; and he never 
 took a message to the Co-respondent about any other lad'es* 
 babies. No ! decidedly he had never seen the Doctor nursing 
 a- baby (laughter promptly suppressed). The Petitioner, with a 
 futile attempt at incipient sarcasm, '"You have never seen him 
 nursing one. Have you seen him nursing two?" Witness : " Not 
 one !" (Laughter again judiciously smothered). On Saturday 
 night the Priests left the Presbytery at about 7 p.m. On Friday 
 
 night they generally went into the Cathedral at about 8 o'clock. 
 
 Sometimes they returned at 9 o'clock, and sometimes at 9.30 p.m. 
 
 He had seen Dr. O'Haran go into the Church on a Friday night 
 
 only twice. 
 
 At this stage the Court adjourned until n a.m. on the day 
 following. It was arranged that the Jury should meet at the 
 Court at 10 a.m., and proceed to inspect the Cathedral and the 
 buildings attached.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. IQ9 
 
 The daily press of the i.|th March published a notification in 
 connection with the report of the Trial, that Mr. J. W. Abigail hal 
 written to say that he was not professionally interested in the 
 Conin<, r ham Case, and that the mention of Mr. Abigail in evidence 
 in connection with the matter did-not in any way refer to him. 
 
 THE JURY VISIT THE CATHEDRAL. 
 
 On the fifth day of the hearing of the now historic case an 
 archaeological and architectural interest was lent to the proceedings 
 by the visit of the Jury to the scene of the alleged wicked acts of 
 intercourse. The twelve good men and true braced their nerves 
 together and treked to the Cathedral, where they inspected the 
 grounds both of the edifice and of the divorce. Accompanying the 
 Jury were a Sheriffs Officer and the Clerk of Works, Mr. Barr, 
 who was employed when the alterations were in progress. 
 
 SOME WITNESSES WHO WERE DISPENSED WITH. 
 
 The Court resumed business at n o'clock on Friday (March 
 1 5th). Mr. Want opened the proceedings by saying that the date, 
 2gth June, had been abandoned by the Petitioner ; therefore, the 
 witnesses he had summoned in reference to that date might be 
 allowed to go. There were twelve or fourteen witnesses he had 
 summoned in reference to that date, and some of them had come 
 from Port Macquarie. He (the Counsel) was fairly entitled to 
 know definitely whether the date had been abandoned. His Honor 
 said that he did not know. The Petitioner said that he could only 
 take the evidence of the Respondent. He was not going to call 
 any other witnesses that would have any effect on Mr. Want's 
 witnesses. His Honor said that Mrs. Coningham, in the box, had 
 given evidence that she was mistaken as to the date June 2gth, and 
 then said that what she alleged on that occasion took place on 
 July ist. Mr. Want wished to know whether Coningham intended 
 to rely on the date of July ist, or whether he was still going to call 
 witnesses for June 29th. The Petitioner said he was going to rely 
 upon the Respondent's evidence. Counsel remarked that this 
 arrangement would suit him very well, and that there was no need 
 to retain witnesses. 
 
 A COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONER, CONINGHAM. 
 
 Coningham complained of the night before. He thought that 
 it was disgraceful. He was followed by 500 or 600 people who 
 behaved like caged animals. The police had been obliged to 
 surround him it was manifestly unfair. The Judge said that if 
 anything of the kind occurred in the precincts of the Court he 
 could, of course, deal with it. He had no control outside the 
 Court. That was a matter for the police, and he thought that the 
 police ought to take more precautions to prevent persons crowding 
 about the Court. The police had it in their power to make these 
 people move on and to prevent a crowd from assembling. Mr.
 
 2OO THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Want (referring to the crowd) said that they were only a dirty lot 
 of the "unwashed." Petitioner (with vehemence): "But I get 
 them !" Counsel : " Because you always go out by the front door." 
 His Honor ; " I beg your pardon. I have seen them elsewhere. 
 If anything occurs inside the Court I will deal very promptly with 
 them, but I have no power outside the Court." 
 
 EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT'S SISTER. 
 
 Mary Bostock, Mrs. Coningham's sister, said that she remem- 
 bered the Respondent being seriously ill in 1898. Just before that 
 illness she remembered going to Church. She had an appointment 
 with Mrs. Coningham, and went to the Church to meet her sister, 
 but did not do so. It was the first Sunday in the month a 
 procession night in 1898. Mrs. Coningham was taken ill the 
 following week. This witness no! iced the Co-respondent in the 
 Church that night, but could not say if she saw him at Vespers. 
 He -was there at the -very start of the Procession! The Petitioner 
 asked Mrs. Bostock if her sister had told her something, but 
 Counsel objected. Witness (continuing) : Dr. O'Haran was late 
 to dress the Cardinal. She (Mrs. Bostock) had gone to the 
 Cathedral with Mrs. Coningham on several occasions, and had 
 come back with her. Once he said, meaning the Doctor, " Mrs. 
 Bostock, I have just been telling your sister that if her husband 
 goes with the cricket team, we will put her in the convent." After 
 that they went home. She attended the " Tenebrae " during 
 Easter week. One night the Doctor came off the altar, leant over 
 her sister (the Respondent) and spoke to her. Mrs. Bostock was 
 sitting at her side. Dr. O'Haran spoke very quietly, and the 
 witness could not hear what he said. It was near the end of the 
 ceremony. The Doctor went out, but came back in a few moments,. 
 and spoke to the witness and her sister upon ordinary topics. 
 Mrs. Bostock then went home by herself. She left her sister at 
 the tram. The witness remembered going down the Harbour to- 
 a picnic with Mrs. Coningham. It was the only picnic she had 
 attended. At about half-past two they went on board the boat. 
 Some thirty or forty people were there. The witness and her 
 sister (Mrs. Coningham) had their children with them. Yes, Dr, 
 O'Haran was present. He sat beside Mrs. Coningham, and read 
 a paragraph about a lottery. A girl had drawn a prize, and they 
 made some remark about it. The Doctor was sitting at Mrs. 
 Coningham's side during the conversation. The Petitioner wanted 
 to know what remark it was that the Doctor made. The witness 
 did not know. " Did he whisper it ?" and Mr. Want objected to 
 such leading questions. His Honor remarked that Coningham 
 must put his questions more generally. He must not put them in 
 such a way that the witness had to answer only " Yes." Otherwise 
 he put the answer into the witness's mouth. 
 
 The witness further stated that the Co-respondent then sal 
 opposite to Mrs. Coningham and herself, and remained there for
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 2OI 
 
 about ten minutes. At the picnic she saw the Doctor only at a 
 distance. When they were going to the boat he spoke a few 
 words to Mrs. Coningham, but witness did not remember what 
 they were. The Respondent did not tell her anything then. 
 Witness was never at the telephone with Mrs. Coningham, and 
 had never listened at the receiver ; but she had been present when 
 her sister used the telephone. Mr. Want objected to the Petitioner 
 asking Mrs. Bostcck if she had been present when the Respondent 
 rang up Dr. O'Haran. His Honor said that witness could hear 
 the telephone message. "But," said Mr. Want, "Your Honor 
 sees I have to be very particular in this Case." The Petitioner 
 wanted to know, when Mrs. Coningham used the telephone, for 
 whom she asked. Counsel again objected. To make such evidence 
 admissible they would have to show that the Co-respondent was 
 at the other side of the telephone. His Honor said that he did not 
 see that the telephone message could be got. It was very hard to 
 say what was the value of these telephone messages. Mr. Want 
 interjected, "You don't know that he is at the other end !" His 
 Honor told the Petitioner that he could say only whom the 
 Respondent asked for. Coningham then said, " Whom did she 
 ask for?" Dr. O'Haran! The Petitioner then demanded what 
 name the Respondent gave ; but his Honor said that the witness 
 could not give that name, because it was a conversation behind the 
 back of Dr. O'Haran. Coningham asked if, after the Respondent 
 rang up, she did not have a conversation with some one. Yes, 
 she had a conversation through the telephone. Witness thought 
 that He had been with her sister two or three times when she 
 rang the Doctor up. She never heard what was said, because she 
 would never take the receiver. At the time of these telephonic 
 conversations her sister, wlrs. Coningham, was living with her. 
 At that time she (the Respondent) was ill. Her sister was certainly 
 in comfortable circumstances. She had never noticed Coningham 
 ill-use his wife in any way. He appeared to look after her well. 
 Oh ! yes, the witness remembered the xyth March, 1899 (St. 
 Patrick's night). She thought that it was the night upon which 
 she and her sister went to " The Geisha." Mr. Want, with marked 
 sarcasm: "One minute! one minute! Don't you volunteer the 
 information about going to the ' Geisha.' You have got it all 
 ' pat ' !" Witness, however, was asked the question by the 
 Petitioner, and answered that she had gone to the " Geisha " on 
 
 the night in question with Mrs. Coningham and Mrs. . She 
 
 met the Respondent at the corner of Market and Elizabeth Streets. 
 Petitioner wanted to know how his wife was dressed, and Counsel 
 asked what that had to do with the Case. His Honor said that 
 this was one ot the occasions upon which impropriety had beet> 
 alleged. Mr. Want said, " What can anything that took place at 
 the corner of Market and Elizabeth Streets have to do with the 
 Co-respondent?" His Honor said, "That maybe a very strong 
 argument for you to use to the Jury ; but he could not shut out
 
 202 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 that evidence." Mrs. Bostock deposed that she had not gone often 
 to St. Mary's with the Respondent ; and save for the one occasion 
 mentioned she had never been kept waiting longer than a few 
 minutes. Did she have a conversation with Mrs. Coningham in 
 respect to the business of the Co-respondent ? Mr. Want told the 
 witness not to answer the question, and his Honor remarked that 
 -they could not have a conversation that took place behind the 
 back of the Co-respondent. The Doctor had never brought her 
 .anything to drink in the Church. He sent her a glass of water 
 when she was ill witness fancied that was the first time she saw 
 him. Her sister introduced her to him. The witness further 
 stated that she lived at Miller's for some time. She went to 
 Fairfield for a change. The house was properly conducted while 
 she was there there was no impropriety of any sort. It was an 
 ordinary country house. On the lyth of March, 1899, Mrs. 
 Coningham showed the witness a small harp. They were both in 
 the theatre at the time. Her sister showed her also a photograph 
 of the Doctor, which, she had told her, was given to her (Mrs. 
 Coningham) by the Co-respondent. Mr. Want said, " Never mind 
 that. She has told us where she got it !" 
 
 THE CROSS-KXAMINATION OF MRS. BOSTOCK BY MR. WANT. 
 
 In answer to Counsel, in cross-examination, Mrs. Bostock 
 stated that the picnic referred to was St. Mary's School picnic. 
 There were about thirty or forty persons on board the boat, which 
 was one of the later ferries to Middle Harbour. Most certainly 
 there was nothing about the picnic to suggest anything 1 wrong 1 or 
 improper. She saw no improprieties in connection with it. Harps 
 might have been sold and distributed at other Irish gatherings ; 
 though she had never seen any. She had seen the photograph 
 referred to at Glebe Point, where Mrs. Coningham was then living. 
 She saw the photograph in her sister's bedroom. Her sister took 
 it from a drawer or box, not out of a frame. She (witness) made 
 the remark ! Counsel did not care what remarks she made. 
 Mrs. Bostock was to keep that to herself, please. With regard to 
 this telephone, did she not say that Mrs. Coningham had asked 
 her to take the receiver. The witness did not remember being 
 asked to take the receiver. She could hear what her sister said, 
 although she could not hear the replies. One of the telephones 
 was at the Glebe Post Office. Another was at Mr. King's chemist 
 shop, in a little room at the back. Mrs. Bostock could see her 
 sister in the act of telephoning, because the door was open. She 
 had attended St. Mary's on three or four processional nights. Dr. 
 O'Haran was, she alleged, for a time absent, and was late for 
 robing the Cardinal. She had not specially noticed the Doctor in 
 close attendance upon the Cardinal, because she had always seen 
 him going about the Church. She had seen him going about 
 from one place to another preparing different things. Yes, she 
 knew that Dr. O'Haran was the Master of Ceremonies he led the
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 2OJ 
 
 procession in. On the night referred to, he came in with the 
 procession, in front of the ladies. The witness saw the Co- 
 respondent leading the procession and going back with it. She 
 did not know the benefit of putting Mr. Coningham's wife in a 
 convent. She thought that when Dr. O'Haran mentioned it that 
 it was a very funny thing. She was not aware that married ladies 
 and their children were not taken into convents. They might, she 
 thought, be taken into some church home. " Did the Doctor say 
 that he would take Mrs. Coningham to a convent, or take her and 
 the children ?" asked Mr. Want. The witness deposed Dr. 
 O'Haran simply said that if Mr. Coningham went to England he 
 would put her into the convent. She could not remember about 
 the children. 
 
 MRS. BCSTOCK IS RE-EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER 
 
 in answer to the Petitioner, Mrs. Bostock said that she had 
 seen the Co-respondent moving about the Church on the night of 
 the procession. She could not be sure whether he moved about 
 whilst Vespers were being conducted. She had never had any 
 occasion to take notice of him. Witness was not in the Cardinal's- 
 Hall during 1898. 
 
 CARDINAL MORAN IS EXAMINED. 
 
 Cardinal Moran was then called, and entered the witness-box. 
 The Petitioner began his examination of his Eminence by directly 
 insulting the Church. He asked that the witness should be sworn 
 on his own " Bible." He insinuated that at the last trial some 
 exception had been taken to passages in the "Bible" used by 
 Protestant sects, and Father Cregan refused to be sworn on it. 
 Mr. Want said that Father Cregan preferred to be sworn on his 
 own ".Bible" simply as a Doctor might. His Honor said that if 
 the Cardinal wished to be sworn on another " Bible " he could be. 
 The Petitioner, with rude insistence, said that he wanted his 
 Eminence sworn on his own " Bible." His Honor asked the 
 Cardinal if he recognized any difference in taking an oath on the 
 " Bible" before him, or taking the said oath on his own " Bible." 
 His Eminence said that the oath was equally valid whether taken 
 on the Protestant, or the Catholic Testament. Coningham then 
 requested his Honor to ask the Cardinal if he preferred to be sworn 
 on his own " Bible." The Judge said that as long as his 
 Eminence had no objection as to which book he was sworn on, it 
 did not matter which he preferred. Cardinal Moran stated that he 
 had his own "Bible" with him. A great many people, his 
 Eminence continued, owing to a natural prejudice, preferred their 
 own " Bible," but he (the Cardinal) regarded the validity of the 
 oath as equal, whether taken on a Protestant or on a Catholic 
 " Bible.' In answer to Mr. Want, the witness said that he had 
 with him a Catholic " Bible," which he had no objection to using. 
 The Cardinal was then sworn on his own " Bible."
 
 204 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 The evidence of the head of the Catholic Church in Australasia 
 was to the following effect : Dr. O'Haran was Administrator ol 
 ;St. Mary's Cathedral and his (the Cardinal's) Private Secretary. 
 The Doctor had held the latter position some four or five years, 
 during which time his Eminence had never once received a 
 complaint concerning his moral conduct. He had never given any 
 direction to Dr. Murphy to investigate the moral conduct of the 
 Doctor. Counsel said, " Let us have Dr. Murphy here. I have 
 no objection to this, because none of it is admissible. I object to 
 any evidence being given except that which is within the Cardinal's 
 own knowledge." His Honor remarked that Cardinal Moran 
 could only answer for himself. Then turning to the Petitioner the 
 Judge said : "You are asking him whether Dr. Murphy held an 
 inquiry." Mr. Want objected to all this. It was no part of the 
 issues to be tried, and was done only to throw mud. His Honor 
 told Coningham that he could not ask the Cardinal about anything 
 that was not within the knowledge of his Eminence. The witness, 
 in answer to the Petitioner, then averred that he knew of no 
 investigation having been held into Dr. O'Haran's moral conduct. 
 In answer to a question of the Petitioner's as to whether the 
 Cardinal knew of any investigation into the Co-respondent's 
 conduct apart from immorality, about that time (since 1888) ; his 
 Eminence said that this was a very general question. He had had 
 a great many complaints, but he knew nothing about an investiga- 
 tion regarding a complaint against Dr. O'Haran. In speaking of 
 these matters the Cardinal said that they referred to the Doctor's 
 showing more favour to one school than to another. No! certainly 
 Dr. O'Haran could not run the Archdiocese as he pleased ! The 
 Petitioner should ask no such ridiculous questions. He (the 
 Cardinal) considered himself able to administer the whole of the 
 Archdiocese ; Dr. O'Haran was his Private Secretary, and as such 
 did his duty faithfully. The Petitioner then rudely said that he 
 did not want to know whether the Co-respondent did his duty 
 faithfully or not. He wanted to know if any complaints had been 
 made against him since the petition was served on him,' or since 
 the last trial when he never proved his innocence. Counsel 
 remarked that the Petitioner had no right to say such a thing. 
 His Honor told Coningham not to make such remarks. The 
 Cardinal testified that since the last trial Dr. O'Haran had con- 
 ducted the business of the Cathedral in the very same manner as he 
 had previously done. Coningham, with marked impertinence, 
 isked his Eminence if any other priest had been charged .in the 
 same way, and had not been able to prove his innocence, would he 
 (the Cardinal) have retained him in his position. Counsel objected 
 to such a question ; and his Honor said, with considerable severity, 
 that he would not allow it. He would not allow the Petitioner to 
 make speeches that appeared offensive in their form. Coningham 
 could ask a plain question and press it as much as he liked. The 
 'Cardinal, in answer to the Petitioner, again averred that up to
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 2O5 
 
 date he had received no complaints of the Co-respondent's moral 
 conduct neither verbally nor in writing. "Did you receive any 
 letter from me ?" asked Coningham of the Cardinal. Said the 
 latter, "I received an attestation of your conspiracy!" The 
 Petitioner said that he did not want that ; he wanted a plain 
 "Yes" or " No." His Eminence then obligingly said, "Yes!" 
 Coningham continued with his constitutional rudeness: "The 
 conspiracy is on the other side ; I want an answer !" Said the 
 Cardinal, "I have said 'Yes!'' In reply to further questions, 
 the Cardinal stated that he had received two letters from Coning- 
 ham. Would he produce them ? queried the Petitioner. Counsel 
 told his Eminence not to answer the question. The Cardinal 
 stated that if the Court wanted them, they would be produced. 
 His Honor asked the Petitioner if he meant that he wanted these 
 letters produced to put in evidence. He (the Judge) had told the 
 Petitioner that he could not make evidence in that way. A plaintiff 
 could not write a letter setting out his Case, and then put that 
 letter in as evidence. The Petitioner denied having written a 
 letter setting out his Case. His Honor : "It is still more objection- 
 able, because it is wholly irrelevant." Coningham then asked the 
 Cardinal if there were not, in the letters referred to, charges 01 
 immorality. The Judge reminded the Petitioner that he could not 
 get out the contents of those letters. Coningham changed his 
 direct attack, and said to the Cardinal: "You swore you never 
 received anything in writing or verbally complaining about the 
 immorality of the Co-respondent?" Mr. Want: "Don't answer 
 that question, Cardinal !" " But," said his Eminence, " I do 
 swear '." Mr. Want pointed out that the Petitioner was insinuating 
 that those beautiful letters referred to contained complaints about 
 the Co-respondent. Their side knew what the letters contained. 
 Coningham said that he also knew. This, however, surprised nobody 
 in Court, as he acknowledged their authorship. His Honor again 
 told the Petitioner that it was useless for him to try to get at the 
 contents of those letters. Coningham backed down. He would try 
 no more ; but, as he doubted the credibility of the witness, he wanted 
 to test it. His Honor told the Petitioner that he could test the 
 Cardinal's credibility in a legal way. Coningham then asked his 
 Eminence if he knew the contents of those letters Yes, said the 
 Cardinal, perfectly. He knew they were a conspiracy from the 
 first, and handed them over to Mr. T. M. Slattery, who had held 
 them some two or three months before he (the Cardinal) had 
 been subpoenaed in the present Case. His Eminence did not 
 remember whether he had given them up before the last Case. He 
 thought that he had lost one, but afterwards found it, and gave it 
 to Mr. Slattery. He made no inquiry concerning the contents of 
 the letters, for they needed none. On the face of them they were 
 a conspiracy the case was qr' clear ! No, he did not remember 
 having at the former hearing s\vorn that since receiving those 
 letters he had had a conversation with the Co-respondent in
 
 2O6 THE CONIKGHAM CASE. 
 
 connection with them. He had, of course, had a conversation on 
 the substance of them ; but that was not an inquiry into the truth 
 of the charges. "No ! thanks be to God," fervently remarked the 
 Cardinal, " I receive very few such letters !" He did not think he 
 had ever received such correspondence before. It was a manifest 
 conspiracy. He (the Cardinal) had thought of it a great deal ; 
 and the more he thought, the more he saw that it was a clear 
 conspiracy. The Petitioner, with his ready impertinence and 
 facile .sneer, remarked: "You are not game to show that letter, 
 and let the world see whether or not there is a conspiracy !" His 
 Honor said that he could not allow this sort of thing. A document 
 was legally admissible or it was not. If it is not admissible it cannot 
 be produced under any pretext, or under any challenge. The 
 Cardinal stated distinctly that he had never received any corre- 
 spondence from Dr. O'Haran about these letters; nor had he 
 (witness) written to the Doctor about them. Yes, his Eminence 
 sa ; d that he had written a letter to Dr. O'Haran, which had 
 reference to the Case. He did not remember when he wrote it. 
 It was soon after the Petitioner's letters had been received by him. 
 It might have been only a few days. He wrote merely to show 
 his estimate of the Doctor's administration, and did not refer to 
 Coningham's letters at all. To another question by the Petitioner, 
 the Cardinal answered very definitely that he had said that he (the 
 witness) had never sent Dr. O'Haran any letter about his (the Peti- 
 tioner's) letters. He had written to the Doctor about the Case, and 
 about the reports which, his Eminence supposed, the Petitioner had 
 circulated. Was the Cardinal aware that no one knew about the 
 Case till the 25th September? "Oh, everybody knew about it," 
 returned the Prelate. The Petitioner, excitedly : " I say no one 
 knew. If they did, the Co-respondent spoke about the Case 
 coming on !" Mr. Want : " Don't make a speech !" The Cardinal, 
 in reply to the Petitioner, reiterated his former testimony with 
 regard to writing to Dr. O'Haran. His Eminence had always 
 found his Private Secretary truthful. He never found him out in 
 any lies in reference to the Commonwealth procession (January ist, 
 1901). There was no foundation for a newspaper statement that 
 Dr. O'Haran and the Hon. E. W. O'Sullivan (Minister for Works) 
 had been brought face to face about any such matter. If a charge 
 were made against a priest under ordinary circumstances he 
 might be suspended ; but not so under circumstances similar to 
 those under which Dr. O'Haran had been charged. The Petitioner 
 then tried to drag in some reference to Bishop Mahoney of 
 Armidale. His Eminence wished to Know why Coningham 
 enquired about that prelate he was not in the Colony at the time. 
 His Honor wanted to know what Bishop Mahoney had to do with 
 the Case ; and the Petitioner said that he had a lot to do with it. 
 The Judge did not think the Petitioner could ask that question. 
 The Petitioner then asked that Mrs. Coningham be called, and 
 that lady came into Court. The Petitioner essayed here a tour de 
 mdlodrame ; but it wofully missed fired.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 2O/ 
 
 MRS. COXINGHAM CONFRONTS THE CARDINAL. 
 
 The Petitioner, referring to the Respondent, and speaking to 
 witness, asked the Cardinal if he knew that lady. The Cardinal 
 did not know her ; but he believed he had seen her in Court during 
 the first hearing. However, she made no impression upon him. 
 No ! his Eminence did not know that he had been introduced to the 
 lady at the Passion Play. Thousands of ladies were presented tc* 
 him. He received them with attention ; but, if an hour afterwards, 
 he met them, he would not know them. The Cardinal thought 
 that the Passion Play had been got up by Mr. Walter Bentley. It 
 had proved a complete monetary failure. He said that, in a moral 
 sense, it was, however, a huge success. His Eminence could 
 not produce the books referring to the finances of the Passion 
 Play, simply because there were no books. He had given Mr. 
 Walter Bentley 30 for his services ; but he certainly would not 
 produce his cheque-book. His Honor considered that the cheque- 
 book had nothing to do with the Case. 
 
 At Vespers, said the Cardinal, Dr. O'Haran sat on the steps 
 or the throne, near his Eminence, and on his left-hand. The 
 Doctor was backwards and forwards during the whole ceremony. 
 He was not always out of sight. It was not the duty of the 
 Doctor to robe him (the Cardinal) ; it was the duty of two deacons 
 to present the vestments. The Doctor might have been, on an 
 occasion, ten minutes from his post. The Cardinal had never 
 sworn at the former trial that the Doctor had never been out of his 
 sight for three minutes. During the procession the Doctor was- 
 with him all the while. It was impossible for the Doctor to be 
 absent from the procession for ten minutes ; simply because that 
 ceremony did not last a quarter of an hour. The procession, with 
 the Litanies and Devotions, might last twenty minutes. 
 
 At this point the Petitioner wrote a name on a piece of paper, 
 handed it to his Eminence, and asked him if he knew the person. 
 Yes, the Cardinal knew it. The Petitioner wrote two other names,, 
 sent them up to the witness, and asked if he knew them. Yes, 
 the Cardinal knew them also. Mr. Want remarked that they 
 were the names of three priests. The Petitioner then asked if 
 the Cardinal had received any complaints about them. Counsel 
 demanded if this sort of thing were necessary. There need be no 
 secrecy about the matter. The names of two of the priests were 
 mentioned at the last trial. Were they going to put the whole 
 priesthood of the Colony upon their trial ? His Honor said that 
 he would not allow an investigation into their conduct unless it 
 were connected with this Case. The Petitioner said that their 
 conduct was connected with this Case. His Honor said that it 
 Coniugham wrote down the nature of the charges he made against 
 these priests, he (the Judge) would see whether they had any 
 bearing upon the Case. The Petitioner, after writing for a while, 
 asked his Honor to excuse him for taking so much time. The
 
 2o8 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Judge told "Conny" that he need not write a treatise on the 
 matter only an outline was needed. In a few miuutes the 
 Petitioner handed to his Honor a written statement. The Judge, 
 after reading the paper, said he could not shut out questions on 
 the matter submitted to him. Mr. Want wished to know if he 
 might see what had been written. His Honor asked the Petitioner 
 if he had any objection to Counsel seeing the paper. Coningham 
 said that he did object. Counsel said that he could not cross- 
 examine the Cardinal unless he saw what the Petitioner had 
 written ; but his Honor said that Mr. Want could see from the 
 questions put whether or not they were relevant to the issues. 
 Counsel maintained that Petitioner asked an irrelevant question 
 when he wished to know if any complaints had been made against 
 these three priests. His Honor thereupon told the Petitioner that 
 he could not ask that question. The Petitioner then asked the 
 Cardinal if within the last five days he had been shown an original 
 telegram. His Eminence said he had not ; no, nor the copy of a 
 telegram. As to whether he (the Cardinal) had deprived any 
 clergyman of his position in consequence of a telegram, witness 
 said that such a thing was a matter in connection with his own 
 private jurisdiction. Mr. Want wished to know what the 
 Petitioner's question had to do with the case. Neither did his 
 Honor see how the working of Cardinal Moran's Archdiocese 
 affected the issues of the Case before the Court. The Petitioner 
 pressed the question : Had his Eminence deprived a priest of his 
 position because of a signature on a telegram ? The Judge would 
 not allow the question, as it dealt with the Cardinal's adminis- 
 tration. Coningham then wanted to know if the witness had held 
 an inquiry in connection with this Case during the last five days ? 
 The Cardinal said that he had not. No, Dr. O'Haran had not 
 complained to him (witness) about anyone speaking in regard to 
 the Case. As far as making common cause with the Co-respondent 
 the Cardinal said he made common cause with every innocent 
 person. It was all nonsense to talk about Dr. O'Haran being the 
 power behind the throne there was no power behind the throne 
 except his own, said his Eminence. No telegram containing one 
 of three names referred to had been shown in his presence. There 
 might have been such a telegram within the last three months. 
 His Honor said this kind of thing was exactly the same as before. 
 If it were allowed he would have to go into the whole of the 
 inquiry. '-He (the Judge) did not know what it was. The Petitioner 
 asked his Eminence if he had gone to Rome in 1893. The Cardinal 
 said he had, and he had also been taken seriously ill while there. 
 He had made no complaints at Rome about Dr. O'Haran, and he 
 had no intention of leaving him behind. Coningham then entered 
 at length on the make and shape of Confessional Boxes, and 
 received from his Eminence various adequate replies. Cardinal 
 Moran was not aware that Dr. O'Haran visited St. Joseph's College 
 to hear penitents. Any of the priests might go there and give
 
 THE SECOND TKIAL. 2Og 
 
 sp : ritual consolation if required to do so. He had never heard 
 that the Doctor had lectured in connection with the Case at St. 
 Mary's, at any convent, or at any church. " Someone must have 
 been humbugging" you," said his Eminence. It was not true. 
 Such a thing as that referred to by the Petitioner was never done. 
 He (the Cardinal) would swear that Dr. O'Haran did never in St. 
 Mary's Cathedral take the Blessed Sacrament in his hand and 
 swear he was innocent of the charge. Such an action would be 
 simple blasphemy. The Cardinal was asked if he were Dr. 
 O'Haran's confessor, but he refused to give the Petitioner any 
 information about the Confessional. It was private and confidential. 
 Coningham pressed for an answer to this and similar questions, but his 
 Honor disallowed them, and the Petitioner retired defeated. He then 
 shifted his ground and demanded from the Cardinal information 
 about the administration of the Sacrament, etc. At this stage the 
 Judge again interposed. He really could not allow this sort of 
 questions. He did not want to know it. It was not a matter that 
 this Court could inquire into at all. Cardinal Moran said that 
 Coningham's marriage with his wife was quite valid, providing 
 there was no impediment. Coningham tried to get his Eminence 
 to swear that the letters previously referred to were a conspiracy. 
 Counsel asked the witness not to answer that question ; and the 
 Judge said that he understood the Cardinal to say that he treated 
 them as a conspiracy the letter itself would not be a conspiracy. 
 His Honor, again interjecting, did not see what the Cardinal's 
 treatment of complaints, when he received such, had to do with the 
 Case. The Jury was there to determine whether adultery had, or 
 had not, been committed ; not what the Church might say, or how 
 the Church might deal, with persons convicted of an offence. It 
 was simply a question of fact whether there was, or was not, 
 adultery committed. That was all ! Coningham then asked the 
 witness to enlighten him on such questions of detail as to who kept 
 the keys of the office, etc. Here the Cardinal was at a loss to say. 
 These were matters he did not trouble himself about. He knew 
 that the Administrator had charge of the Presbytery that was all. 
 No ! said his Eminence, in reply to the Petitioner, a Sacristy inside a 
 Church is not a Sacristy there was a Sacristy adjoining the Church 
 i iside the Church buildings, but outside the Church. The 
 Cathedral had no Sacristy outside there were three. A Sacristy 
 was used for keeping vestments for sacred ceremonies, and for 
 ceremonies connected with the Church administration. The witness 
 knew the path between the Cardinal's Hall and the Cathedral. 
 Alterations had been made there during the past two years. It 
 had been entirely changed. New parts had been placed there, and 
 a wall had been removed, and other improvements made. There 
 were no wooden steps in that part two years ago. The southern 
 door was not blocked up with masonry two and a half years since ; 
 and he had certainly seen crowds of people about that door. In 
 the procession, stated the Cardinal, he walked under the canopy,
 
 210 THE COX1NGHAM CASK. 
 
 was the celebrant in the devotion, and the bearer of the Sacrament 
 under the canopy in the procession. Asked by the Petitioner what 
 he did whilst in the procession, his Eminence answered, " I say 
 my prayers as best I can !" He looked about to see that every- 
 thing was right. He did as much devotion as he could. He had 
 spoken if he had seen anything going wrong ; but the procession- 
 was not a time for talking. Oh yes ! Sometimes he was pretty 
 well able to see what was going on behind him. Dr. O'Haran had 
 the whole organization of the procession. He was behind him- 
 (the Cardinal) and beside him. His Eminence said he was never 
 in the procession himself for more than ten minutes. The Doctor 
 was much like the conductor of a choir. The ceremonies depended 
 upon him, and if he were to go away, then the ceremonies would) 
 be misconducted. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE CARDINAL BY MR. WANT. 
 
 Mr. Want asked the Cardinal if he had sent Dr. O'Haran a 
 letter in connection with the case. Counsel then read the letter,, 
 which was as follows : 
 
 St. Mary's Cathedral, Sydney, November 8, 1900. My Dear Dr. O'Haran, 
 I deem it a matter of duty to convey to you, in this official manner, my sincerest 
 condolence in this terrible ordeal of persecution to which you are being at present 
 subjected. 1 don't know that any other form of persecution is more unscrupu- 
 lous, or more cruel, than that which endeavours to destroy the good name and 
 fame of our priestly character. Your consolation will be found in the words read 
 in Holy Mass to-day : " Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, 
 for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." The like persecution has been the lot of 
 the very best and holiest and most devoted priests, from the time of St. 
 Athanasius down to Father Damien, in our own day. Your sacred ministry in 
 Australia has been blessed in many ways, and has achieved magnificent resulls. 
 I don't know a single one whose sacred ministry during those sixteen years, has- 
 been more fruitful in works of religion. It is but natural that Satan would stir 
 up enmity to you whilst you accomplish so much good. You may rest assured 
 that in this attempt Satan shall be discomfited, and that all these present trials 
 will only add to the splendour of religion amongst us. Our Divine Master 
 permits the present burden of persecution as a lesson to bear His Cross faith- 
 fully, whilst looking solely to Heaven for reward. Should you require any 
 material aid in your defence against this malicious conspiracy, you may draw on 
 my account for any sum that you require. Yours faithfully, and affectionately,, 
 f PATRICK F. MORAN, Cardinal-Archbishop of Sydney." 
 
 The Cardinal, in answer to Mr. Want, said that this letter 
 honestly represented all that he knew of Dr. O'Haran since he first 
 became acquainted with that gentleman. His Eminence further 
 said that he always endeavoured to be present on processional nights, 
 but he was sometimes unavoidably away from the ceremonial. As 
 a rule, however, he endeavoured to be there on the first Sunday. 
 He really could not answer whether he had, from the year 1898 to 
 the present time, ever been absent. He thought that he was, on the 
 first Sunday in November, absent in Queensland. As a rule, Dr. 
 O'Haran accompanied the Cardinal when he was away from Sydney ; 
 he, for instance, went with his Eminence to Queensland. Yes, 
 the procession took place just the same whether he (the Cardinal)
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 211 
 
 were absent or not. His Eminence did not remember a single occa- 
 sion when he was celebrant that the Doctor was absent from his 
 duties. The particular date of the 3rd July, 1898, was particularly 
 Impressed upon the mind of the Cardinal, because upon that day he 
 opened a college at Ryde, and he had experienced a very severe drive 
 in order to be home in time. On that occasion also he did not re- 
 member that Dr. O'Haran had been absent from his duties. Prac- 
 tically, the Doctor could not have been absent on any occasion. As 
 the manager of the procession, he could not possibly be away with- 
 out a thousand people knowing it he could not be absent without 
 his absence being observed. The ceremonial of the procession was 
 .a voluntary service, and Dr. O'Haran always performed it. He 
 never remembered an occasion on which the Doctor came in late 
 when the vestments were being presented to him (the Cardinal). 
 The witness then described the duties performed by the Doctor in 
 the procession, and reiterated that he never knew him to be absent 
 from any of his duties. Neither did he remember the Doctor making 
 .an excuse for late attendance. Counsel asked if the 3oth April, 1898, 
 fell upon a Sunday ? The Cardinal remembered the date perfectly 
 well. Dr. O'Haran was in his company on that day ; and about a 
 hundred persons went up from Sydney to the celebration in which 
 they were engaged, great numbers meeting them there. There was 
 quite a fete at Waitara distant some sixteen miles from the city of 
 Sydney. The Cardinal and Dr. O'Haran drove out in a carriage the 
 whole way, and returned to Sydney in the same manner. There was, 
 of course, the coachman also, and about a hundred people from the 
 City. The road ran alongside the railway line. The ceremony was 
 unique of its kind. A cavalcade of about forty horsemen came to 
 -escort them from Pymble to Waitara. The Cardinal said that he 
 attended to place the foundation of the new convent in connection 
 with the foundling hospital at Waitara. The witness then identified 
 .a newspaper report of the ceremony. His Eminence further stated 
 that he left Waitara at a quarter after five o'clock. He could re- 
 member the time because when they were packing up to come away 
 the train was about starting for Sydney, and their friends had to 
 run away with their umbrellas because it was raining. Dr. O'Haran 
 accompanied him back to Sydney. He believe'd that the train left 
 at seven minutes after five, and his carnage arrived at the North Shore 
 punt at fifteen minutes past seven in the evening they must have 
 been home at a quarter to eight. It was absolutely impossible for 
 Dr. O'Haran to have been in St. Mary's Cathedral any time between 
 one and six o'clock, on the 3rd July, 1898, for the purpose of immoral 
 conduct with the Respondent. The Doctor was with witness all the 
 time. He (the Cardinal) was in a position to swear positively that 
 it was quite untrue that Dr. O'Haran was in the Cathedral between 
 the hours of one and six o'clock. The Cardinal explained that Dr. 
 O'Haran presided at the Presbytery before going to Waitara. Dinner 
 was served precisely at one o'clock because the party had to start at 
 two o'clock in order to catch the punt to North Shore. Moreover,
 
 212 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 the Doctor was in the company of his Eminence during the whole 
 time, counting from one o'clock. He (the Cardinal) had noted that 
 Mrs. Coningham had, as on the occasion also of the last trial, selected 
 the i yth March, 1899, as the date upon which she had been guilty 
 of improper conduct with his Private Secretary, between half-pait 
 seven and eight o'clock. The witness then related a difficulty at the 
 Town Hall concert on that night (St. Patrick's) in regard to the 
 taking of tickets. Two sets of ticket-takers were appointed by two 
 different committees. On ordinary occasions of a St. Patrick's night 
 concert Dr. O'Haran always went with the Cardinal at eight o'clock, 
 but on this particular night he (the Doctor) went to the Cardinal at 
 a quarter-past or half-past seven, and told him he would have to go 
 to the Town Hall as some confusion had arisen. Even when the 
 Cardinal himself arrived at the door he was detained for some minutes 
 owing to the confusion that had arisen between the two different 
 committees that were connected with the concert. 
 
 THE CARDINAL IS RE-EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER. 
 
 Coningham began by asking the Cardinal if there were not a 
 small door at the end of the Hall. Yes, there was. Was the witness 
 aware that the Respondent said she thought she was going into the 
 street and stepped into the Hall. The Cardinal stated that he paid 
 not the slightest attention to what she said. The Petitioner then 
 asked the witness if the Respondent could imagine that she did so. 
 The Cardinal said that it depended upon what sort of ideas she had. 
 The Petitioner wanted to know if it were a likely place to take a 
 woman into. Said his Eminence : " That is a very foolish 
 question !" Witness, in answer to the Petitioner, then again 
 explained the times connected with his visit to Waitara, and said it 
 was not the duty of Dr. O'Haran to be at the Cathedral every night. 
 He (the Cardinal) went by himself to the St. Patrick's Concert, and 
 arrived there punctually at eight o'clock. He thought that the 
 concert had proved a financial success. He received no complaint 
 that nearly everybody had got into the concert for nothing. Yes, 
 the doors could have been opened at seven o'clock. Dr. O'Haran 
 did not drive with him to the concert that night. The Cardinal was 
 positive that they caught the two o'clock punt to North Shore en 
 the 3Oth April not that timed for quarter to three. Oh ! yes, his 
 Eminence did look at his watch. They got back at about a quarter 
 past seven o'clock, and arrived at the Presbytery shortly before 
 eight o'clock. He could swear positively that on the afternoon in 
 question Dr. O'Haran was with him the whole time. There was 
 not, and could not be, any mistake about this fact. The Petitioner 
 at this point desisted in asking his Eminence further questions. 
 
 MRS. CONINGHAM RE-CALLED AT COUNSEL'S REQUEST. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham was re-called at the request of Mr. Want to- 
 be questioned with regard to her visit to the firm of Messrs. 
 Dowling and Taylor, solicitors.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 213 
 
 The Senior Counsel for Dr. O'Haran asked the Respondent if 
 she had gone down to Messrs. Dowling and Taylor's office on 
 Monday morning last (nth March), and had she seen Mr. Dowling? 
 The Respondent had done so. Had she told Mr. Dowling that 
 she wanted him to come up and " strike " the Jury for her ? No ! 
 said Mrs. Coningham, he said he was very thankful he had nothing 
 to do with the Case. 
 
 In answer to the Petitioner the Respondent said she had gone 
 to Messrs. Dowling and Taylor's office at the instigation of Mr. 
 Exton, who told her that if she called at the office of these solicitors 
 there would be a list of names for her to see. She had made no 
 arrangements with him to " strike." Yes, she had the list, but not 
 with her just then. When Mr. Dowling handed her a list of the 
 Jury Panel he said that a gentleman had left it with him that 
 morning he did not mention the gentleman's name. Said the 
 Petitioner to witness : " Whom did you understand it was from ?" 
 Mr. Want : " I object ! You have a very shrewd suspicion !" The 
 Respondent, continuing, said in answer to Coningham. that Exton 
 had not said the Petitioner had sent him ; neither did Mr. Dowling 
 say so. The last-named had not mentioned the name of the 
 Petitioner, or of anyone else. She did not see Mr. Taylor, although 
 she asked for him. Coningham then asked if Mr. Taylor had been 
 reprimanded last time for her not attending Court earlier. Mr. 
 Want here interposed : " Certainly not ! The Judge said that if 
 he thought Mr. Taylor were keeping her he would be very angry." 
 His Honor asked if Mr. Taylor were Respondent's solicitor. Mr. 
 Want said no Mr. Taylor had refused to act for the Respondent. 
 Mrs. Coningham : " No he did not. He is quite willing to act when 
 I like !" His Honor wished to know what they had to do with 
 that ? The Petitioner said that all kinds of insinuatu -s were being 
 mais anything to break him up ! money and brains he had to 
 fight. A Juryman here asked if it were possible to get a list of the 
 names of the Jurymen before a case came on. Counsel replied. 
 " Oh, yes !" The Juryman thought that until the Judge's Associate 
 read out the names no one knew anything about them. His Honor 
 said that it was the usual thing. The Juryman said that if he had 
 known that he would have got either of the two sides to have 
 challenged him : an expression of honest pique that caused hearty, 
 but promptly - suppressed laughter. The Judge explained that 
 there was a very large panel. The irrepressible Juryman said 
 yes, they were the twelve out of the sixty. Counsel remarked 
 jocularly that many were called, but few were chosen. The Court 
 was vastly amused, and even the Judge smiled. 
 
 Coningham called- Mrs. Marquet, the housekeeper at 
 "Burrilda," Fairfield; but answer there was none. 
 
 The Petitioner then craved the indulgence of the Court. He 
 could not think of the name of his next witness. A Juror arose and 
 addressed the Judge. It was then nearly four o'clock, and he
 
 214 E COMXGHAM CASE. 
 
 Coningham v. Coningham. 
 
 k O'Haran Co-respondent. 
 
 I 
 DEAR SIR. 
 
 I respectfully beg to draw your attention to he fact that 
 the above-mentioned Divorce Suit, which ended 30 unsatis- 
 factorily after a protracted hearing in December last, has been 
 set down for re-trial on March llth, 1901. 
 
 At a meeting of gentlemen held on Tuesday, 5th lost a 
 Committee ~waa 'formed for the purpose* of receiving and, 
 administering funds which may be donated for the prosecution 
 of this suit. 
 
 For obvious reasons the 'names of these gejitlemen will 
 not appear, but as to their bona fides, the Committee would 
 refer enquirers to Messrs. Russell, Jones & Barker, Solicitors. 
 Circulars and Subscription Books (hearing the signature of 
 the Petitioner) are being distributed throughout the colonies. 
 It behoves all right-thinking persons to give their assistance 
 >P so that the Petitioner, who is penniless, may employ eminent 
 3 ' i counsel to enable him to place his case on equal terms with, 
 j the Co-respondent .before a tribunal of his fellow-men. All 
 
 ^> *} i ibscriptions will be held in trust by the Committee, and a 
 v ? receipt will be forwarded signed by the Petitioner, who will 
 3 J\ act as Secretary to the Committee. Letters should be addressed 
 3 to A. CONINGHAM, c/o Russell, Jones & Barker, Solicitors, 
 
 ^ Pitt Street, Syaney, and letters- so tiddressed will be opened in 
 j>^ the presence of the Hon. Treasurer. No donor's name will be 
 
 ^ ^t divulged either in or out of court, and the strictest confidence 
 
 y will be observed. 
 
 "^ As time is limited, and a large sum will be needed to *uc- 
 
 i ^^k cessfully prosecute the suit, please forward subscriptions at 
 > once. 
 
 w s ^ Trusting to hear favorably from you, 
 
 ^ >O^ I am, yours respectfully, 
 
 <S r-i On behalf of the Committee, 
 
 ^ ARTHUR CONINGHAM. 
 
 ^ Kindly pass this on .to you? friends. 
 
 * -v 
 
 "v^, \^ r- M BOOTH, PB.NTfB VICTOR'* *RCM . 
 
 [Coningham' s "Lyddite" Shell.}
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 215 
 
 
 [Comngham's " Lyddite "'Shell. The above Letter was written on the Back of 
 the foregoing Coningham Circular.]
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 thought that it would be admitted, that they had done very well for 
 that week. If he might make a suggestion, especially as, if a new 
 witness were called at that late hour nothing much could be done 
 His Honor interrupted : " Your suggestion is that we should adjourn 
 now?" "Yes, your Honor." His Honor: "Very well, we -wilt 
 adjourn now !" The Juror, continuing, said that they were all 
 business men, and he could assure his Honor that they were not in 
 Court of their own accord. The Judge smiled, and said : " But you, 
 are here, and you have your duties to perform. Monday, gentlemen, 
 will be a Court holiday. I will adjourn until Tuesday, at 10- 
 o'clock !" And the Court then adjourned. 
 
 This was on Friday, the 1 5th March. On Saturday, the Court of 
 course never sat. Sunday, the lyth, was St. Patrick's Day, but the 
 great Irish national and religious holiday was kept up on Monday, the 
 1 8th. A Catholic event full of significance, as happening at this- 
 juncture, was the removal on Sunday (St. Patrick's Day) of the 
 remains of Archbishop Polding, Archdeacon McEncroe, Archpriest 
 Therry, and Father Power, the first from the Petersham, and the 
 others from the Devonshire Street Cemeteries, to St. Mary's 
 Cathedral. The ceremony was of a most imposing character, and 
 was carried out with the most impressive ritual, ^amid many 
 thousands of people. 
 
 THE SIXTH DAY OF THE CASE. 
 
 The Court was crowded on this opening day of the second week 
 of the trial ; while in front of the building there was a large gathering 
 of men who failed to obtain admission owing to the precautions taken 
 by the Sheriff to prevent undue crushing. 
 
 As soon as the Judge had taken his Sheriff has handed it to me, and I have 
 
 seat upon the Bench, the Sheriff (Mr. opened it. 
 
 Maybury). addressing him, said: Mr, Want : May I see the envelope,. 
 
 " Your Honor, I have received a letter, your Honor ? 
 
 addressed to the Jury in this Case, His Honor : Yes. 
 
 which I beg to hand to the Court." The Sheriff: Will I hand the letter 
 
 His Honor (having perused the docu- to the police, your Honor ? 
 ment), said: "In this case a letter His Honor: Yes. There is another 
 has been received which has ap- matter that I wish to mention. It 
 parently been written to the gen- appeared from a report given of what 
 tlemenof the Jury, commenting on the was stated at the time Mr. Moss pro- 
 evidence that has been given here, duced those documents that he (Mr. 
 and directing their attention to cer- Moss) had consulted the Prothonotary 
 tain matters. I can't conceive any- or some Officer of the Court with refer- 
 thing more improper. Unfortunately encetoit. I find that this is altogether 
 there is no signature to it, and there- a mistake. I have seen the Prothono- 
 lore I have no means of taking any tary, and I have seen the Deputy 
 action." Addressing the Sheriff, " Do Prothonotary (Mr. Sadington), and 
 you think there is any chance of ascer- they have seen all of the Officers in 
 taining the writer if the matter is '.the Department, and none of them 
 placed in the hands of the police?" have spoken to Mr. Moss with refer- 
 
 A Juror (to his Honor) : Did you say ence to this matter at all. I mention 
 
 it was written by a Juror? this because it left the impression that 
 
 His Honor : Oh, no, no, no. It is possibly the Co-respondent's solicitors 
 
 written to a Juryman. It is a letter or Counsel were informed in that way 
 
 addressed to the Jurors, and the through the office of these docu-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 217 
 
 ments being in the possession of Mr. Mr. Miller, stating, "Dear Fred, I 
 
 Moss. sent you a telegram yesterday." What 
 
 Mr. Want: I never intended to con- he (Mr. Want) now desired to ask 
 
 vey that. Petitioner was : If he had sent such a 
 
 His Honor : I am sure you did not ; telegram would it have been in his own 
 
 but that is the impression a great many name ? 
 
 persons have received. The officers Petitioner: Yes, it would be, pro- 
 assure me that they gave no advice viding, of course, that I sent it myself, 
 whatever. His Honor : That is if you did send 
 
 Mr. Want desired his Honor's per- one. 
 
 mission to ask the Petitioner a question. Petitioner : I do not remember send- 
 
 It would be remembered, he said, that ing one. Of course, I do not know if 
 
 he had asked Mr. Coningham if he had anyone else sent one in my name, 
 
 sent a telegram to Mr. Miller in conse- Mr. Want : That is all I want. I- 
 
 quence of his having sent a letter to want to get the telegram. 
 
 James Russell, the licensee of the Assembly Hotel, Phillip and 
 I lunter Streets, Sydney, was called and sworn. The Petitioner asked 
 the witness if he and Mrs. Russell received an invitation from Mr. 
 Miller to visit him at Wetherill Park ; but Counsel objected to the 
 question. Coningham pressed for an answer, because Mr. Want had 
 said that he (Petitioner) had taken Mrs. Russell to Fairfield. Counsel 
 declared that he had not done anything of the kind. He had told the 
 Petitioner, fairly enough, that there was nothing of the sort suggested 
 or insinuated in his (Counsel's) questions. Coningham said he was, 
 under the circumstances, completely satisfied ; and the witness left 
 the box. 
 
 The name of H. C. Russell, another witness for the Petitioner, 
 was called, but did not answer. 
 
 The Petitioner asked his Honor if he would inform him the 
 meaning of an " answer in reply ?" If he were to ask the Co-respon- 
 dent questions, and the Co-respondent answered them, could he (Con- 
 ingham) bring witnesses in reply ? His Honor said that it depended 
 whether the questions were material or not. If they were questions 
 that could be answered, the Petitioner was entitled to put them, but 
 in a great number of cases he would be obliged to take the answers 
 given by the Co-respondent if the questions were not material. The 
 general rule was that you must go into the whole of your Case in the 
 first instance, and not afterwards supplement it. The Petitioner 
 desired his Honor to tell him if, when he asked the Co-respondent 
 questions dealing closely with the case, could he (Coningham) give 
 an answer in reply ? His Honor said that he could not answer the 
 Petitioner's query, except to say if the questions asked of the Co- 
 respondent were not material to the Case he must be satisfied with 
 the answer that he got. If the matter were important, the Petitioner 
 might, in some cases, be allowed to give evidence to show that the 
 witness was not speaking the truth. The Petitioner thanked his 
 Honor. That was all he wished to know. 
 
 Coningham here closed his Case. 
 
 Mr. Want, in his address to the Jury, while vehemently deprecating 
 the Petitioner's motives, subsequently paid high tribute to his- 
 miscreant ability.
 
 -218 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL 
 
 219 
 
 
 
 1 i
 
 22O 
 
 THE COMNGHAM CASE. 
 
 Stors dffuri{> Tflanst 
 
 page of the Coningham Sympathiser's Subscription List ]
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 221 
 
 THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. 
 
 The case for the Co-respondent, the Rev. Dr. Denis Francis 
 O'Haran, D.D., Administrator of St. Mary's Cathedral, in the Arch- 
 diocese of Sydney, and Private Secretary to his Eminence, Cardinal 
 Moran, was then entered upon. 
 
 George Relph, law stationer, and expert in hand-writing, was 
 called, and examined by Mr. Want. He had been employed by the 
 Government in a number of cases in connection with hand-writinef. 
 
 Mr. Want: Look at that. (To his 
 Honor). That, your Honor, is the al- 
 leged confession of June 13. (To the 
 witness) Can you tell me whether any- 
 thing has taken place where you see 
 that date July 3rd? 
 
 Witness: July is written on an era- 
 sure. 
 
 Is there any doubt about there hav- 
 ing been an erasure there ? Not the 
 slightest. 
 
 And look at the two letters following. 
 Will you tell me, apparently, what has 
 taken place there? It looks as though 
 a figure had been previously made, and 
 some sort of an addition made to it. 
 
 Can you see what it has been before. 
 I mean those two little things there 
 (pointing to the small letters after the 
 date) ? There has been a " d " there 
 a small " d," to the right. 
 
 What has it been ? It looks like 
 " o-r-d." 
 
 At any rate, there has been an altera- 
 tion ? Yes. 
 
 And an erasure ? Yes, decidedly. 
 
 Do you think it has been " nd" ? 
 
 Mr. Coningham objected. 
 
 Mr. Want : I'll draw his attention, 
 as an expert, to anything I like. 
 
 Witness : Probably it has been " nd." 
 
 Petitioner : Put the words into his 
 mouth. 
 
 The witness said that the " r" seemed 
 to have been formed by touching the 
 second stroke of the " n." 
 
 Mr. Want : You had those documents 
 on Saturday afternoon ? Yes. 
 
 And spent some time going carefully 
 through them ? Yes, about three hours. 
 
 Mr Want : Was your attention drawn 
 to some places marked with red pencil 
 there ? Yes. 
 
 And you compared them with these 
 (holding up some other pieces of 
 paper) ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want : There, your Honor, are 
 some of Mrs. Coningham's letters, some 
 papers which she wrote in Court, and 
 the so-called forgeries, etc. 
 
 His Honor : Are Miss Shiel's letters 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Want; I will describe them, your 
 Honor. There are letters which Mrs. 
 Coningham wrote in Court exhibits 
 " W" and " X" and then there is a 
 letter from Mrs. Coningham to Miss 
 Shiel exhibit "Y." Then there is 
 exhibit "A4," also from Mrs. Coning- 
 ham to Miss Shiel, and "Ai,"from 
 Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel. And 
 there are two pinned together, one of 
 which is "A3" Mrs. Coningham to 
 Miss Shiel and " A2," from Mrs, Con- 
 ingham to Miss Shiel. Then there is 
 a letter marked " U," from Mrs. Con- 
 ingham to Miss Shiel, and one " V," 
 from Mrs Coningham to Miss Shiel. 
 There is also one " Z,"from Mrs. Con- 
 ingham to Miss Shiel. These I will 
 put in evidence now. They were ad- 
 mitted to be in her hand-writing, and 
 they included two pieces of paper upon 
 which she wrote in Court. 
 
 His Honor: Are you putting them 
 in separately ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Yes, your Honor. Now 
 I am going to ask the witness with 
 reference to the exhibit marked " A5." 
 It is a letter containing the words, " If 
 you denv Arnold's letter and post-card 
 so will I." 
 
 Addressing the witness: " I want 
 you to take that one first of all. I am 
 going to ask you to look at exhibit 
 " C," which has been marked for iden- 
 tification. That is the one in which it 
 is stated, " I can't understand the 
 seventeen steps.' 1 Take those two first 
 of all, please ; take the one that is 
 written on notepaper the seventeen 
 steps one. I want you to tell me if 
 you compared those letters which you 
 know were marked for identification to 
 Miss Shiel with the letter referring to 
 the seventeen steps marked "C." 
 First of all, can you tell me whether or 
 not all these letters are in the same 
 hand-writing the letters to Miss Shiel 
 and what the Respondent wrote in
 
 222 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Court ? I am of opinion that they 
 were all written by the same individual. 
 
 Have you any doubt about it what- 
 ever, after the careful examination you 
 have made? No. 
 
 Now, in order to enable the Jury to 
 judge the weight of your evidence, I 
 want you to draw their attention to some 
 of the particular parts of those letters 
 that convince you to that effect. Per- 
 haps the Jury had better take the 
 photographs- take anything you want 
 to draw their attention to? Well, I 
 require the letters. 
 
 Mr. Want : Mrs. Coningham's own 
 letters he wants. 
 
 His Honor (addressing the Peti- 
 tioner) : This is merely pointing out 
 some peculiarity in them to the Jury. 
 
 Mr. Want : I want to draw your 
 attention to these first of all Take the 
 "seventeen steps" one. Will you 
 now, in the one which you have, draw 
 the attention of the Jury to anything 
 peculiar in it? 
 
 Witness : The general size and 
 running, the slope of the letters, and 
 the dash at the ends of the words are 
 almost exactly the same. The general 
 formation of the words and letters, the 
 dashes over the " t's " and the "p's" 
 and the dashes at the ends of the lines 
 coincide. There are the words, " Why 
 not tell His Honor ? . . . Bostock 
 . , . for." The " for " has a pecu- 
 liar dash ; there is a peculiar sharp 
 dash at the end of the word. 
 
 Mr. Want : Now, show the Jury in 
 the letters of Mrs. Coningham to Miss 
 Shiel where those letters appear. 
 
 Witness: The commencement of the 
 stroke of " t," and the forming, the 
 curving round inwards from the start. 
 In these papers 
 
 His Honor: What are they? 
 
 Witness : They are marked " C." 
 
 Mr. Want : It is the ' ' I want money" 
 letter. 
 
 Witness : In these the general make 
 of the writing throughout is the same. 
 Comparing the letters written by Mrs 
 Coningham with that marked " C," 
 the general slope and character of the 
 writing are almost exactly alike. 
 
 Mr. Want : You've drawn attention 
 to the dash at the ends of the words, 
 and to the letter " t" wherever it com- 
 mences a word. Can you point out 
 anything else in Mrs. Coningham's let- 
 ters? The "g's," " y's,"and " i's" are 
 all very much alike. 
 
 You have been through the whole of 
 the letters ? Yes. 
 
 And have compared them with the 
 letter " C," in which there occurs the 
 phrase " I want money ?" Yes. 
 
 And in your opinion they are all 
 written by the same person ? Yes. 
 
 Have you compared the letter con- 
 taining the words: "Deny Arnold's 
 letter and postcard" with the same 
 documents ? Yes. They are written 
 by the same person ; the same hand. 
 
 You have no doubt about that ? No. 
 
 What are the points of similarity ? 
 The figures " 2" and " 99" are the same 
 in each case. 
 
 (The Jury then inspected the letters 
 at considerable length). 
 
 The witness then drew attention to- 
 the similar character of the capital 
 letter "1" and the figures "4" and 
 "5," which he described as being 
 exactly the same. 
 
 Mr. Want : Can you point out any- 
 thing else ? 
 
 Witness (after a long examination) : 
 All the letters which I looked at on 
 Saturday are not here. 
 
 Mr, Want explained that there was 
 one document, produced by Mr, Moss, 
 among other papers, which was not in as 
 evidence. The witness had seen that. It 
 was, therefore, partially his (Mr. Want')s 
 fault that the witness was confused. 
 There is another letter, said Mr. Want, 
 which Mrs. Coningham said she did 
 not write. It reads: "Subpoena the 
 cabman at the Glebe. He stands out- 
 side West's rooms. He trusted Miss 
 Sutherland. He drove me over a 
 dozen times on Sundays. Cabby is a 
 Catholic. I can't remember his name." 
 Compare that with the other letter. 
 Can you see anything in the way of 
 similarity ? Yes, the figures again. 
 And the formation of the " p's." 
 
 Mr. Want : I want you to take the- 
 little piece of paper with the words 
 " adultry," " apologisng," and " pri- 
 scription," and compare it with the 
 words in that (handing up a document) . 
 
 His Honor : What is it ? 
 
 Mr. Want: Exhibit "2." (To wit- 
 ness) I want you to compare it with- 
 "As," Yes. 
 
 Can you tell me what has occurred 
 there ? The word "priscription" I see 
 
 Well, what do you say as to those 
 two words ? They are identical. 
 
 Has there ever been a dot over what 
 I call the first "i"? No, never.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 223 
 
 Now, take the word " apologisng," 
 and see what has been there ? - There 
 is a dot over the "i." 
 
 No, I don't mean that. I am talking 
 about the way it is written? It is 
 written by the same hand. 
 
 Look at the way the word ' ' apolo- 
 gisng " finishes ? 
 
 \Yhile the witness was examining 
 the letter, Mr. Want drew the atten- 
 tion of his Honor to the foot of he 
 figure "9," which had been referred to. 
 
 Mr. Want (to witness) : Well, that 
 one in pencil you had, "A 10." I have 
 not asked you yet. Is that in the same 
 
 hand-writing as that in Mrs. Coning- 
 ham's letters to Miss Shiel ? 
 
 Witness (after rejection) : I am in- 
 clined to think they are. There is a 
 peculiar "k" in that which occurs in 
 the other letters. 
 
 Does that "k" also occur in that 
 "you deny Arnold letter and post- 
 card" letter? Yes; in the word 
 " know." 
 
 Mr. Want then put in the exhibits 
 " C," "A 5," and "A 10" as evidence. 
 "There is now sufficient proof," he 
 said, "that they are in her hand- 
 writing." 
 
 THE EXPERT CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER. 
 
 Petitioner ; Where are you in busi- 
 ness, Mr. Relph? I have been in 
 Elizabeth Street for twenty years. 
 
 Witness (continuing) said that he 
 had been an expert witness before. He 
 saw the letters on Saturday afternoon 
 in Mr. Slattery's office. Mr. Slattery 
 and Mr. Want were there part of the 
 time. Hand-writing could be copied. 
 There was a system having that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Petitioner : Are you aware that there 
 is a system of copying by means of an 
 electric light and a piece of glass ? I 
 have heard of it. 
 
 And it is possible, is it not, that these 
 letters, which I and Mrs. Coningham 
 say are forgeries, have been done that 
 way ? I don't think these have been 
 done that way. 
 
 Was there not something in con- 
 nection with the " Picturesque Atlas " 
 of that kind, some years ago ? I think 
 I do remember it. 
 
 Is there not a great similarity between 
 the hand-writing of many females? 
 There is. 
 
 You say that the " g's " in two of 
 those letters are alike ? Yes. 
 
 Did you not notice that in one of the 
 letters they are written " backwards," 
 and hi the other in ordinary hand- 
 writing ? I did not notice that. 
 
 Well, look at them. Can you point 
 out any similarity in them ? 
 
 Mr. Want : That is not the one that 
 was shown to the Jury. Show him the 
 letter of October 2. 
 
 The witness (having examined them): 
 The formation of the tops of the 
 "9's " is alike. 
 
 Petitioner : There is not the slightest 
 resemblance. 
 
 The Jury spent several minutes com- 
 paring the " g's." 
 
 Mr. Want: I forgot to ask, this 
 witness certain questions about some 
 other documents, your Honor. 
 
 Petitioner : Wait till I have finished 
 with the witness. 
 
 His Honor : You had better wait 
 until Mr. Coningham has finished, Mr. 
 Want. 
 
 Petitioner : Will you swear that tue 
 same writer who wrote the letter with 
 the three " g's " wrote that other docu- 
 ment written in Court ? I will swear 
 that that is my opinion. 
 
 Didn't you say : " I am inclined to 
 think so?" I do think so. That is 
 my opinion. 
 
 Witness said it appeared that the 
 stroke had been erased. It appeared 
 to have been slightly damped. He 
 would not say that it had been erased 
 with a knife. 
 
 His Honor : What document is that ? 
 
 Petitioner : It is something I wrote 
 at the table. I erased it with my 
 knife, and strongly, too. 
 
 His Honor : Do you require it to be 
 marked ? 
 
 Petitioner: No, your Honor, unless 
 you 
 
 His Honor : No ; I only thought you 
 might require it. 
 
 Petitioner showed the witness other 
 letters, and asked: What is your 
 reason for thinking there has been an 
 erasure in the date of the confession ? 
 I have no doubt there has been an 
 erasure. There is a mark of the 
 erasing with a knife, or whatever was 
 used, clearly on the surface. 
 
 And you say there have been other 
 words ? There is room for a word, 
 evidently the end of a word.
 
 224 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Can you point out where there has 
 been the slightest trace of " ord " or 
 "ond." There is no room for it? 
 You could put it in twice there. The 
 second portion of the " n " is evidently 
 touched up. It has a top to it to make 
 't "or " and " d " has been added. 
 
 Could it be that the pen was de- 
 fective ? 
 
 His Honor : What do you mean by 
 " defective?" 
 
 Mr. Want : A hair in it, your Honor. 
 
 His Honor: Do you think that it 
 would be caused by writing with a pen 
 with a hair in it ? 
 
 Witness : No. 
 
 Petitioner : What makes you so posi- 
 tive? Simply because there has been 
 an erasure, which has caused the ink, 
 however lightly put on, to spread. 
 
 Was it not possible for the paper to 
 have been thin there, and there being 
 something the matter with the pen, 
 could not it have occurred ? Yes, 
 possibly it could. But there has evi- 
 dently been an erasure here with a 
 knife or some sharp instrument. 
 
 Petiiioner handed the witness two 
 documents, and witness said they were 
 not written by the same hand. They 
 were not identical. 
 
 Petitioner then wrote something at 
 the table and handed it to witness, and 
 asked him if the wri'i g on it and 
 another document was identical. 
 
 Witness: Yes. 
 
 Isn't it possible for the paper to have 
 been like that before it was wri'len en ? 
 Yes. I'm positive about the erasure. 
 
 Mr. Want : Let's have a microscope, 
 
 Petitioner : Let's have a telescope, if 
 you like, for all I care. 
 
 Witness : It's been a sharp knife, 
 used very lightly. 
 
 Petitioner : You swear it ? Yes, it 
 is my opinion. 
 
 Are you a friend of the Co-respond- 
 ent's ? No. 
 
 Do you know him ? No. 
 
 Seen him ? Yes, I have seen him. 
 
 Had a conversation with him? No. 
 
 Go to his Church ? No. 
 
 A member of his Church ? No. 
 
 You say women's writing is very 
 much alike ? Yes. 
 
 Would it not be possible for an expert 
 penman who has had the originals in his 
 possession for months to imitate the 
 writing ? Yes. 
 
 You have known it to be done? 
 Yes. 
 
 Petitioner ; Your Honor, this docu- 
 ment is one Mr. Moss produced. Are 
 they entitled to have it out of Court ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Mr. Moss produced a 
 document which he alleged was the 
 Petitioner's, and another 'hat he al- 
 leged was in Mrs. Coningham's writ- 
 ing. I called Mr. Moss to produce 
 them, and I'm entitled to have them in 
 my possession 
 
 Petitioner : Yes ; you've had them 
 for three days. 
 
 Mr. Want : If your Honor likes, I 
 will leave them in Court, and make ap- 
 plication for them when I want them. 
 
 His Honor : I think you had better 
 do so. 
 
 Petitioner : One of these documents 
 is in my writing, and is the whole of 
 my Case. They have had it for three 
 days Mr. Moss stated to me that it 
 had been destroyed. 
 
 Mr. Want : Mr. Moss stated in Court 
 that that was untrue. 
 
 His Honor (to Petitioner) : You said 
 there was no such document as that 
 produced by Mr. Moss, 
 
 Petitioner : I distinctly stated in the 
 b ix that Mr. Moss had my revised 
 statement. I appealed to Mr. Moss for 
 it, and he told me it was not in exist- 
 ence. Under the circumstances I said 
 I would give no order for documents I 
 was told were not in existence. 
 
 His Honor : I ruled that Mr. Moss 
 could produce the documents because 
 you denied they were in existence. I 
 cannot have my ruling questioned now. 
 
 Mr. Want : I will hand the docu- 
 ments over. I am entitled to keep 
 them, but I will hand them over. 
 
 Petitioner : But you've had them for 
 three days. 
 
 THE EXPERT RE-EXAMINED BY MR. WANT. 
 
 Mr. Want (to witness) : Had you any 
 connection with this Case before Satur- 
 day morning ? No. 
 
 You were asked to come to Mr. Slat- 
 tery's office because he would not allow 
 the documents to leave his office ? 
 Yes. 
 
 And you were three hours by your- 
 self going through them ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want : What process by electri- 
 city is that spoken of, Is not that only 
 used for copying something already in 
 existence ? Yes. 
 
 As regards the similarity in feminine
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 225
 
 226 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 hand-writing, h*ve you ever seen in 
 your life a case where such a resem- 
 blance went right through a letter ? 
 No, never. 
 
 Now, there are a letter and a post- 
 card addressed to "Miller," a post-card 
 to " Mrs. V. Arnold," and a registered 
 letter to "Mrs V.Arnold," Look at 
 them. Then look at this telegram, 
 "Fred -; meet me Fairfield Sta- 
 tion." Tell me what yon think of the 
 hand-writing in those. Are they all by 
 one person ? Look at the addresses, 
 first of all, and then open them. They 
 are all written by the same individual. 
 
 You swear that ? Yes. I examined 
 those on Saturday. 
 
 Compare the word " Mabel" signed 
 at the bottom of two of these (" I'll 
 
 bring you up more oysters and stout 
 . . . shout . . . etc.") to the 
 word "Mabel " in the letter to Miller. 
 Have you any doubt that they were 
 written by the same person ? No 
 doubt. 
 
 Look particularly to the words- 
 " Wetherill Park" in the telegram and 
 in the address of one of those to " Mrs. 
 Arnold." Are they not in the same 
 hand-writing? It is the same hand- 
 writing. 
 
 Mr. Want then tendered all these 
 documents as evidence. 
 
 The witness was also questioned as 
 to the writing on the butt of the re- 
 ceipt for the registered letter, which he 
 also said was in the same hand-writing. 
 
 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE EXPERT. 
 
 The Petitioner further cross-examined 
 the witness. 
 
 Petitioner: Could you swear that 
 those are not forgeries ? In my opinion 
 they are not. 
 
 Could you swear positively that they 
 are not forgeries ?- -Not unless the same 
 writer tried to forge them (Laughter). 
 
 Look at those two papers. Can you 
 swear that they are not forgeries? I 
 can. 
 
 You can swear it absolutely ? Yes, I 
 can. They are not similar in every respect. 
 The same person wrote them. If they 
 were forgeries, one would be an exact counter- 
 part of the other. 
 
 ANOTHER EXPERT CALLED. 
 
 Alexander Stewart , Chief Inspector of 
 the A.J.S. Bank, said that he had had 
 thirty-six years' experience in compar- 
 ing hand-writing. Any difficulty oc- 
 curring in the bank about signatures 
 was generally referred to him, if he was 
 about. He had been asked to examine 
 certain documents, and to compare 
 them with others. 
 
 Mr. Want: Have you formed any 
 opinion as to whether they were writ- 
 ten by the same person ? This letter 
 (holding up one) is written by the same 
 person as these others, without any at- 
 tempt at disguise ; and this one (hold- 
 ing up another) is written by the same 
 person with an attempt at disguise. 
 
 Mr, Want : The first one, your Honor, 
 is" the letter commencing, "I want 
 money," etc., and the other is the 
 letter in which reference is made to 
 Mrs. Bostock. The witness is compar- 
 ing them with Mrs. Coningham's letters 
 to Miss Shiel. 
 
 The witness went on to say that there 
 was no room for reasonable doubt as to 
 the writer being identical in each case. 
 There were certain noticeable peculiari- 
 
 ties. The "u," for instance, in the 
 word "you," had a peculiar junction 
 with the letter "o," which was the 
 same in each instance. 
 
 You were explaining something about 
 the word "you." Is there anything 
 further you wish to say about that? 
 I'll give you the documents first of all ? 
 What I said about the word " you" 
 was that the letter " u" following the 
 letter " o" had a peculiar junction with 
 the "o." As to the " y" itself, you 
 will find it rarely has what is called a 
 loop to the tail of it. 
 
 And that is the characteristic in Mrs. 
 Coningham's letter. Now, look at the 
 " g's" in eachof those documents which 
 are there ? Yes. 
 
 And look at the one which is in four 
 pieces "St. Patrick's Concert, '99" 
 do you see anything there the same ? 
 I don't see '99 in the one in four pieces. 
 
 Look a little lower down. Is there 
 not a " 9" on the " A 5" one? Yes. 
 
 Now, look at the first "9"of the '99 in 
 exhibit "C" Yes. 
 
 Look at Mrs. Coningham's letter to 
 Miss Shiel, and see if the same is in
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL 
 
 227 
 
 there or not ? Thsre is a remark- 
 able 
 
 Inthe"9's" in herhand-writingtoMiss 
 Shiel, do you find the same -hing with 
 the " y's' 1 and the same thing with 'ha 
 " g's" - Yes ; there is a peculiar " kick- 
 back," if I may say so 
 
 Petitioner : Is that the envelope ? Is 
 that the one with the three "g's?" 
 
 Mr. Want : Yes. To witness : What 
 do you say ? There is a kind of bar on 
 the "9." 
 
 Do you find the same thing where the 
 "y's" finish with the down stroke? 
 The same peculiarity. 
 
 The learned Counsel intimated to 
 his Honor that he desired to draw the 
 attention of the witness to "p."" 7," 
 and " y." To witness (showing him 
 the photographed document) : Is that 
 what you mean by the " kick-back ?" 
 Yes. " 
 
 Mr. Want : I call it a switch-back, 
 your Honor. 
 
 Petitioner : Show the witness the 
 original document, and not the photo- 
 graph. 
 
 Mr, Want : Very well. I will. Show 
 me the original document referring to 
 the seventeen steps, 
 
 Petitioner : What is the document ? 
 Mr. Want: The one which says " I 
 want money." 
 
 Petitioner : That is what I say is a 
 forgery. 
 
 Mr. Want: You asked me to show 
 the Jury the original. 
 Petitioner : Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want: Very well; that is what 
 I am doing. 
 
 Petitioner : Well, don't say it is the 
 Respondent's. 
 
 A Juror : On behalf of the Jury, your 
 Honor, I may say that we agree 
 that we don't want to see any more 
 of those letters. It is only taking up 
 a lot of time. 
 
 Mr. Want : Take these post-cards, 
 please. You see two post-cards ad- 
 dressed to Miller, and a letter on thin 
 piper addressed to Mrs. Arnold, and 
 also a post-card addressed to Mrs. 
 Arnold. Is the hand-writing on all 
 these the same ? They are certainly 
 all in the same hand-writing. 
 
 The addresses I mean ? Yes, they 
 are in the same writing. 
 
 Look at the telegram while you are 
 about it: Are they all in the same 
 writing ? Yes ; I think so. 
 
 Are you sure they are written by the 
 
 same person ? Yes, I am as positive as 
 I am of my existence. Yet I may have 
 made a mistake, of course. It would 
 ba impossible for any two persons to 
 w rite so much alike. 
 
 A Juryman : Do I understand that 
 the letters that written by her and the 
 letter supposed to be a forgery are 
 wri"en by the same person ? 
 
 Witness : I said I had not a reason- 
 able d: ubt. 
 
 His Honor : Of course, that is only 
 an opinion. The great value of an ex- 
 pert witness is to point things out to 
 the Jurv for them to consider. 
 
 Mr. Want : I have to prove this to 
 put the letters in evidence. I have to 
 identify them as evidence to put them 
 in as evidence. 
 
 A Juryman : I presume when we re- 
 tire we can have all these letters ? 
 
 His Honor: Certainly; everything 
 in the Case you can see. 
 
 Mr, Want : I was going to ask your 
 Honor to let the Jury have an hour 
 with the letters before the addresses. 
 
 A Juryman : I think if we can get 
 them if we want them, that will be 
 sufficient. 
 
 Mr. Want : Now look at the two 
 documents signed "Mabel" and the 
 registered letter signed " Mabel." Com- 
 pare the letter to Miller " My dear 
 Fred," and the letter saying " If I bring 
 more stout and oysters, will you shout ?" 
 The same person wrote both those. 
 There is the remarkable " u" in "you" 
 in both. 
 
 There is only one more document I 
 want to put in. It was written by Con- 
 ingham in Court "If I bring more 
 oysters and stout, will you shout ? 
 Love to the children. Yours, Mabel." 
 Look at that, and tell me if it is the same 
 writing as the letter signed " Mabel ?" 
 The same hand-writing, but not so 
 firmly written. 
 
 Which is not so firmly written ? 
 The one said to have been written in 
 Court. The finish in the letter " g" in 
 " bring" is unmistakable. 
 
 Would it be possible for anyone to go 
 through a whole series of letters in this 
 way and keep up the character of the 
 writing ? It would be a large order. 
 
 Petitioner: Never mind whether it 
 would be a large order. Could it b 
 executed ? 
 
 Witness : I think not. It would have 
 to be very carefully dofle, and the very 
 carefulness would betray it.
 
 22<8 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 3> .. 
 
 v f- 
 
 
 M- 
 
 . 
 
 fy 
 

 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 229 
 
 [Tu-o pages o/a Letter Mrs. Coningham to M/ss Shiel.}
 
 2 3 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE EXPERT. 
 
 Petitioner (to witness) : You have 
 been an expert for thirty-six years ? 
 No ; I have been thirty-six years in a 
 bank. I am not a professional expert, 
 but I am an expert at that sort of thing. 
 
 Petitioner : Can you recall any in- 
 stance in which a forged document laid 
 in the A.J.S. Bank, after passing all your 
 experts, for a year and nine months, 
 
 without being discovered ? No, I can- 
 not. 
 
 Will you swear it never occurred ? 
 It may have been in the Bank, but it 
 never " passed all the experts," as you 
 say. Certainly, no such document ever 
 passed me. I never passed a forged 
 cheque in my life. 
 
 To your knowledge ? To my know- 
 ledge. 
 
 NOT SUFFICIENTLY DISGUISED. 
 
 Now look at these two papers. YOJ 
 say they are alike ? I say that this one 
 shows an attempt to disguise the hand- 
 writing in the other. 
 
 To disguise it? If it is disguised, 
 how can you say it is the same ? It is 
 not sufficiently disguised. Look at those 
 two " i's," they begin the same way, go 
 round the same way, and end the same. 
 
 Well, if you can see any similarity in 
 those " i's," youhave more eyes than I 
 have. Have you ever given expert 
 evidence before ? Yes ; I have done 
 so. 
 
 You have ? With good results ? 
 
 The witness did not answer. 
 
 Will you swear it is not possible that 
 an expert penman, having samples of 
 hand-writing in his possession for 
 months and months, and copying every 
 letter of the alphabet, perhaps, 500 
 times, so as to learn all these little 
 peculiarities, could not forge a docu- 
 ment like that ? A name, perhaps, he 
 could ; but a document as long as that 
 well, it would be next to impossible. 
 
 The Petitioner then submitted several 
 other documents to the witness, and 
 asked him whether he could swear that 
 they were written by the same person. 
 With one exception, he said that they 
 had. The other he was not sure about. 
 
 THE EXPERT RE-EXAMINED BY MR WANT. 
 
 Mr. Want (handing the witness the 
 confession of June 13) : You see the 
 date July 3 there. Can you tell what 
 has happened there ? There has been 
 an erasure. 
 
 Any doubt about it ? No doubt what- 
 ever. 
 
 Did you ever see a hair in a pen do 
 anything like that make an erasure ? 
 
 Petitioner : There's nothing about a 
 hair in a pen making anv erasure. 
 (Laughter). You'll say a rabbit did it 
 next. (Laughter). 
 
 The Witness: There is a way by 
 which the erasure could be detected. 
 There is a certain hairiness about the 
 edges of the letters through the paper 
 biing rougher there. 
 
 Mr. Want (laughing) : Oh, there's 
 t!i3 " hair." 
 
 Petitioner : Yes, you'll get round to 
 the rabbit directly. 
 
 Mr. Want: Now look at the small 
 letters after the figure "3." Has there 
 been any alteration there ? - There 
 seems to have been something like a 
 letter " o," and something appears to 
 have been done to the top of it to make 
 it an " r " 
 
 Was it " rd," do you think, origin- 
 ally ? There's something there that 
 was not " rd" originally. This por- 
 tion, I see, is in different coloured 
 ink blacker ink. 
 
 What has it been before ? Can you 
 see? Not very well. 
 
 Has it been " nd," do you think ? 
 It is not very clear I could not swear 
 that it has been an " n." 
 
 But there has been something there 
 before ? Oh, yes. There has been 
 something under the "3." 
 
 In the same handwriting? I think 
 so ; but written with a finer pen. 
 
 Do you think a hair in the pen could 
 have done that ? No ; a knife has been 
 used there. 
 
 And something has been written 
 underneath that ? -Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want asked if his Honor would 
 allow a microscopical examination to 
 .be made of the confession to-morrow 
 morning, in the Associate's Chambers? 
 
 His Honor: Oh, yes. 
 
 Petitioner : I have no objection. It 
 is as I got it. They can have a tele- 
 scope on to it if they like, or the " X" 
 rays, for all I care.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 23! 
 
 Mr, want: Will your Honor allow and myself asked you to look at those 
 
 -me to see the notes of Mrs. Coning- letters, is that not so ? Yes. 
 
 ham's evidence ? Petitioner : Do you generally waste 
 
 His Honor : In this Case ? y ur afternoons on this kind of thing ? 
 
 Mr. Want: Yes. I won't trouble H.s Honor : You can't ask questions 
 
 TT like that, 
 
 your Honor if you are using them. M ^ ^^ ^^ Q{ th<j n 
 
 His Honor : It's only to pass the anc i t h e Petitioner asked to be allowed 
 
 *' me - to leave the Court for a few minutes. 
 
 Mr. Want : Oh ! As soon as the Petitioner returned to 
 
 His Honor (after Mr. Want had the Barr. table he apologised for keeping 
 
 finished with the notes) : Have you the Court waiting. He said, address- 
 
 iinished with this witness ? m g the J ud g e : 1 must apologise, your 
 
 T. , -.,, , Honor ; but I was threatened by a man 
 
 Mr. Want: Tust one question, your , , ,, , J , 
 
 Honor {To """ess ) fou fcStfS SStAff^ l^ece'?. knO k ~ 
 
 remark made by Mr. Conmeham just . -..r . Txr , 
 
 . Mr. Want : We are always hearing 
 
 now that you were paid to draw these t ^ ese things 
 
 exclusions ? Petitioner : It was at the door, your 
 
 Petitioner: I didn't say that. I said, Honor. It is a disgraceful thing. I 
 
 " Were you paid ?" can't go to the door for a minute with- 
 
 Was there any foundation for that out having remarks made to me. 
 
 remark ? No ; and I declined to His Honor said that all that could 
 
 answer such an offensive question. I be done was for the man to be given in 
 
 .am not paid. charge, if he had done what the Peti- 
 
 As a matter of favour Mr. Slattery tioner had alleged he had. 
 
 J. A. DOWLING IN THE WITNESS-BOX. 
 
 James Arthur Bowling was next sworn and examined by Mr. 
 "Want. He said that he was one of the members of the firm of 
 Dowling and Taylor, solicitors, and he had been twenty-eight years 
 practising in Sydney. Prior to the present proceedings the firm did 
 some professional work for the Coningham family from 1895 to 1900. 
 The firm had two small cases, but had nothing to do with the trial 
 then in course of being heard. He remembered the nth March, 
 the first day of the second hearing of the Case. Mrs. Coningham 
 called at his office on that day at a quarter-past ten o'clock and saw 
 him. Together the witness and the Respondent discussed some 
 information that he (Mr. Dowling) had received through a telephone. 
 The message came at ten o'clock the same morning. An unknown 
 voice asked for Mr. Taylor. The clerk told him (Mr. Dowling) that 
 Mr. Taylor was not in ; and that a gentleman was speaking through 
 the 'phone. He went to the instrument and a voice said that Mrs. 
 Coningham would call at the office at a quarter-past ten o'clock for 
 the purpose of asking him to " strike" the Jury in the Case. He did 
 not recognize the voice, but it was that of a man. He could not 
 give the exact words, but they were to the following effect : " Mr. 
 Dowling, Mrs. Coningham is coming to the office to ' strike ' the 
 Jury !" The witness replied, " I know nothing about the Case. I 
 have no instructions, I am quite sure you are wrong !" The voice 
 then said, " She is coming, and I want you to take from me a list of 
 names of the Jurymen who are bad for her." (The list was 
 obviously that prepared by the Rev. W. M. Dill-Macky, a 
 photographic facsimile of which appears on pages 80-2). The witness,
 
 232 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 continuing, said that he demurred to this. The voice again pressed 
 him ; and, as a matter of fact, he (witness) took down the names for 
 what they were worth. Mrs. Coningham, as already stated, walked 
 into the office at a quarter-past ten o'clock, and discussed with the 
 solicitor the question of " striking " the Jury. The witness said to- 
 her, " I cannot strike your Jury. I have no locus standi in the Case, 
 I am not the solicitor on the record, and I decline to touch your Case, 
 because there is too much party feeling in it !" He averred also 
 that he said to the Respondent, " Here is the list of Jurors bad for 
 you given me through the telephone." Mrs. Coningham then took 
 the list, and remarked to witness, " I am late !" and witness replied. 
 " You are. You had better go up to the Court and strike the Jury 
 yourself." The Respondent took the list with her. No ! there was 
 not the slightest doubt in the world that Mrs. Coningham discussed 
 the " striking " of the Jury List with him. The Petitioner then 
 began to cross-examine the witness. 
 
 THE PETITIONER'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. j. A. DOWLING. 
 
 Coningham asked the witness if his (the Petitioner's) name had 
 cropped up whilst the discussion of the Jury List was carried on. It 
 had not. The witness did not know to whom belonged the voice 
 that spoke to him through the telephone. As a general rule Mr. 
 Dowling said he took no serious notice of communications that came 
 to him in that manner. He took down the names in the instance re- 
 ferred to for the simple reason that he thought Mrs. Coningham might 
 be in trouble. He took the names for what they were worth. He 
 and his partner offered to do absolutely nothing in the Case. The 
 Petitioner said to witness, in reference to the answer just given ; 
 " You are perfectly certain about that ?" Mr. J. A. Dowling : " Are 
 you speaking about this Case or the previous one ? Mrs. Coningham 
 consulted us on the custody of her children." " Are you aware," said 
 Coningham, " that Mr. Taylor brought her here ?" The witness 
 thereupon proceeded to explain that during the first trial, on the 
 evening of the first day, when Mr. Justice Simpson stated that Mrs. 
 Coningham ought to have legal advice, she came to the office of 
 Dowling and Taylor to ask what she should do. They, on their part T 
 took her to a leading divorce, barrister. They agreed to have nothing 
 to do with the Case, and Mr. Taylor took her to the Court. Mr, 
 Taylor did not advise the Respondent. He certainly did not write 
 a letter stating that he (Mr. Taylor) would do everything he could 
 for her in the Case. The witness could produce a press-copy of the 
 letter. With regard to taking the names of the Jurors, the witness 
 said that he asked the man at the telephone what his name was ? 
 The voice answered, " I would rather not give it," and witness re- 
 plied that it was a strange way of doing things. Mr. Dowling, in 
 answer to Coningham, said thai he did not consider it strange that 
 he should, after taking the names in this peculiar manner, hand the 
 list over to Mrs. Coningham. After the Respondent had left the 
 office nobody " popped in" and asked " What are you doing there ?"
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 233: 
 
 Mr. J. A. Bowling further stated, in answer to Coningham, that he- 
 came to Court of his own free will to give evidence in the Case. He 
 (witness) was glad that the Petitioner had asked, " What made him 
 come ?" On Thursday last (i4th March) evidence had gone out 
 which mixed up his firm with the Coningham Trial, and he (witness) 
 had come to the Court voluntarily to let his Honor and the Jury know 
 that he had nothing to do with the Case. Mr. Want (to the witness) r 
 " Did you not ask me as a favour to put you in the box ?" Mr. J. A.- 
 Dowling : " Yes, I came up and begged you to do so !" 
 
 DR. O'HARAN IN THE WITNESS-BOX. 
 
 " Denis Francis O'Haran," so ran the call, was next sworn and 
 examined. 
 
 In answer to Mr. Want, witness deposed that he was a priest of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, the Administrator of St. Mary's Cathe- 
 dral, and the Private Secretary of Cardinal Moran. He denied in Mo all 
 the charges made against him, alleging the specific dates, April 3Oth. 
 1899, July 3rd, October 2nd, and March lyth. There was no foun- 
 dation of truth whatever in the Respondent's statements, general or 
 specific. Of no impropriety or indelicacy of any description had he 
 been guilty with Mrs. Coningham at any time. In answer to Mr. 
 Want, witness said that April 3oth, 1899, was an entirely new date 
 it was not mentioned during the former hearing of the Case.- 
 Neither was it mentioned at that time that Respondent had seen him 
 at St. Mary's Cathedral on the ist April, 1899. On April 3Oth, 1899, 
 the Doctor deposed that he was at \Vaitara, on the St. Leonards 
 railway-line, near the Hornsby Junction. He had left St. Mary's- 
 Cathedral at a quarter to two o'clock in. the afternoon of that day. 
 Dinner took place at one, and immediately after dinner the Cardinal 
 and himself left for the North Shore Ferry. They returned by the 
 quarter-past seven o'clock ferry, and reached St. Mary's at about a 
 quarter to eight in the evening. On the ist April, 1899, the Doctor 
 stated that he was at Lewisham, assisting the Cardinal in opening a 
 bazaar. He left for the bazaar at about 2.30 p.m., and returned at 
 about 6 p.m. This took place on the Saturday preceding Easter 
 Sunday. The witness remembered that at the last trial the Respon- 
 dent alleged impropriety on the 2gth June, and he called ten or 
 twelve persons to prove an alibi. The Doctor, continuing, said that 
 on the present occasion he had other witnesses from Trial Bay and 
 Bega to give evidence one of the witnesses being the Government 
 Medical Officer at Trial Bay. 
 
 His Honor here remarked to Mr. W 7 ant : " A number of wit- 
 nesses were brought forward at the last trial to prove an alibi on the 
 2gth June. Since then Mrs. Coningham had given up that date. 
 What more do you want ?" 
 
 Counsel said he wished to show that the Respondent altered the 
 date from the 2gth June because she did not want to face ten or 
 twelve witnesses. The Jury might say that the lady made a mistake r
 
 2 34 
 
 THK CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 F.I .... 
 
 KING STREET, 
 
 Sydney, 
 
 
 TO THE 
 
 htifu 
 
 Iftctttemwctj Compang, Turf. 
 
 ^ I I ^ v*/| 
 
 Busines Communications malt be addressed to Man 
 When Remi' in'jf. .itnwth'* 
 
 .-.at (or Reference and Receipt 
 
 Account 
 
 Saturda> 
 
 Monday 
 
 Tuesday 
 
 Wednesday 
 
 Thursday 
 
 Friday 
 
 
 Doz. (4 9d. 
 
 //O 
 / // 
 
 AlUJL 
 
 [Receipt showing the Purchase on the 8th March, 1901 , of two Copies of the " Daily 
 Telegraph " relating to the two Dates referred to in the Case, viz., the 1st and the 30th of 
 April.}
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 235 
 
 and he wished to show that ten or twelve witnesses viere prepared 
 to be called to show that she was wrong in the date. To Dr. O'Haran :. 
 " Do you remember the Respondent fixing the day as the first Wed- 
 nesday before the first Sunday in the month of July ?" The witness- 
 said tnat he remembered this. Mr. Want conducted the examination 
 of the Doctor through the whole of the specific evidence given by 
 Mrs. Coningham. Dr. O'Haran gave emphatic denial to every one 
 of the Respondent's statements affecting himself and his behaviour 
 towards her. 
 
 During the examination of the witness, Mr. Want asked hirr> 
 what would prevent the Respondent going between the fern-house 
 and the Cathedral, as she swore she had done ? Dr. O'Haran re- 
 plied that one of the remnants of the walls of old St. Mary's extended 
 back on a line with the present Cathedral. That was blocked by a. 
 heavy hoarding, perhaps twelve feet or fourteen feet high, both on 
 the front and back of the present fernery, where it attaches to the 
 more recently-built Cathedral. There was besides a very large crane 
 erected there, and one of its heads was screwed on over St. Mary's. 
 This crane raised the whole of the material. On top of the wood- 
 work was barbed wire. 
 
 The foregoing must perforce convince the unprejudiced reader 
 that the obstacles to a passage between the fern-house and the Cathe- 
 dral were of very trifling character (sic ! ). 
 
 THE JURYMEN'S FEES. 
 
 At the conclusion of the sixth day's hearing of the Second Case a- 
 Juryman said, en behalf of the Jury, he had to make an application 
 for additional remuneration. His Honor asked the Senior Counsel 
 for Dr. O'Haran if trie Case would last mii->t longer. Mr. Want 
 said, "Oh, yes! But I shall cut off as many witnesses as I can.' r 
 The irrepressible Juryman did not wish it to be thought that they 
 wanted to make money out of the Case. It was by no means a labour 
 of love. The Judge soothed the objecting member of the twelve good 
 men and true, and reassured him as to fees past, present, and to come- 
 
 The Court at 4 o'clock rose until 10 o'clock next morning. 
 
 The Judge opened the proceedings of the seventh day's hearing 
 (Wednesday, March 2oth) by addressing the Jury to the effect that 
 he had considered the question of increasing their fees for attendance,, 
 and was sorry to say that he could not see his way to do it. 
 
 THE POSTMISTRESS AT STRATHFIELD IS CALLKD. 
 
 Mr. Want wished to know if his Honor had any objection to the 
 interposing of a witness. She was the postmistress at Smithfield. 
 Annie Vallincewas then sworn and examined by Counsel. She had 
 charge of the telegraph office at Smithfield, which was about two- 
 miles from Mr. Miller's residence. She had searched her station-book 
 to see whether any telegram other than the one shown to her went
 
 THE COXINGIIAM CASE. 
 
 through to Mr. Miller on February i8th of this year, and she found 
 that only one telegram went through on that day. She could not 
 swear that the telegram handed to her then was the same as the one 
 that went through on the day in question. In answer to the Peti- 
 tioner, the witness said she fixed the day by the entry in her station- 
 book. Coningham said to witness, " Suppose a telegram were sent 
 to Mr. Miller at Wetherill Park, what would happen to it ?" Witness 
 said that it would be sent by her to Wetherill Park, per post. No 
 porterage was charged unless a telegram were delivered. Mr. Miller 
 would call for it at night, or some of his people would call for it. She 
 did not remember whether this particular telegram had been called for. 
 She did not remember posting it, because she posted so many. There 
 was a post-office at Wetherill Park, about half-a-mile from Miller's 
 house. The witness, in answer to Mr. Want, said that a letter ad- 
 dressed " W. Miller, Wetherill Park, via Smithfield," would go 
 through her office. The witness then left the box. 
 
 REBURTON" SEYMOUR EYRE POWELL IS CALLED. 
 
 Reburton Seymour Eyre -Powell, sworn, and examined by Mr. 
 Want, said that he was in charge of telegrams in the General Post 
 Office. He had made a thorough search in the daily statements of 
 his Department to see if more than one telegram went to Mr. Miller 
 on February i8th of this year. He failed to find a record of a 
 second telegram. The Petitioner asked witness who came to him 
 and requested him to make these inquiries. Mr. Powell replied, 
 " Xo one !" No one was allowed to look at his books. No one, 
 save only witness's assistant, was allowed in the strong-room. As a 
 general rule the Heads of the Departments never came in they 
 sent down for what they required. To his knowledge not one of 
 them had been in within the past six or even twelve months. They 
 could not go in without his knowledge, for he kept the keys. Oh, 
 yes ! There was a duplicate key, but witness kept that too. The 
 Postmaster-General (the Hon. W. P. Crick) did not ask him to go 
 through the books \ci order to find out if there was another particular 
 telegram sent to Miller on the i8th February ; but he got authority 
 from Mr. W T ilson, the Manager, to go through the telegrams. He 
 was simply asked to look and see if there were another telegram, 
 and before doing so he got authority from the Head of the Depart- 
 ment. He had not lately been asking any other question about 
 telegrams referring to this Case. In reply to Mr. W 7 ant, the witness 
 stated that the subpoena to produce was addressed to the Deputy 
 Postmaster-General, the Head of. the Department, and he (Mr. 
 Powell) had been instructed to appear in Court instead of that 
 gentleman. Yes, he had appeared in other cases. Mr. Want : 
 " After you last week produced this telegram you were asked by 
 Mr. Slattery to see if other telegrams had been sent to Mr. Miller, 
 .and you then went to Mr. Wilson for authority to search ?"- 
 \Vitness : " Yes and I got it !"
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 237 
 
 CONTINUATION OF THE EXAMINATION OF PR. O'HARAN. 
 
 The examination-in-chief of Dr. O'Haran was then continued 
 b v his Senior Counsel. The witness, in answer to Mr. Want, said 
 that it was absolutely impossible for the Respondent to pass 
 1) -txveen the fern-house and the Cathedral on the day she mentioned. 
 There was nothing whatever to prevent anyone goin'^ down to the 
 Cardinal's Hall by way of the southern door of the Cathedral. 
 This door had never been boarded up for the last sixteen years. 
 There was a difference of five or six inches between the levels of the 
 southern door and the entrance to the Cardinal s Hall. Whatever 
 a'terations had been made it was still the same height going down 
 and coming up. Moreover, an old pillar of the Cathedral, erected 
 there in 1868, would show the levels. 
 
 The evidence of Dr. O'Haran it is not here necessary to publish 
 in detail, as every answer given by the reverend gentleman has been 
 supported in its smallest tittle by numbers of witnesses called for the 
 defence. Mr. Want's examination covered the alleged incident of the 
 night of July 3rd, when the Doctor had gone with the Cardinal to bless 
 and open the Holy Cross College at Hyde; Dr. O'Haran's duties as 
 Administrator and master of the processional ceremonies ; special 
 times at which services took place, etc., etc. It is sufficient to say 
 here that the Doctor gave emphatic denial to every allegation 
 made against him by the Respondent, and his demeanour through- 
 out his examination was that of a calm, courageous man, confident 
 of his power to vindicate his innocence, and strong in his reliance on 
 the justice of his cause. 
 
 THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. O'HARAN BY THE PETITIONER. 
 
 The Petitioner, Arthur Coningham, then proceeded to cross- 
 examine the witness, Dr. O'Haran. The cross-examination was 
 conducted in a blusterous, hectoring fashion, and the manner of the 
 Petitioner was aggressive and arrogant in the extreme. It is 
 unnecessary to traverse the whole of the cross-examination, as it 
 would involve a mere recapitulation of evidence elsewhere detailed. 
 Here is a selection of questions asked by Coningham and answers 
 given by Dr. O'Haran : 
 
 Did she (Respondent) not say, "I They are all indifferent to you. Take 
 
 think it was a Wednesday?" [Referring July 3rd, 1898. Is it your duty always 
 
 to June agth, 1898.] She said posi- to robe the Cardinal ? Yes. 
 
 tively several times it was the last Do you always carry that out? As 
 
 Wednesday [in the month of June]. a rule. 
 
 hat?Itis 
 
 Has not the passage been altered? 
 Petitioner: Did you hear her say it Considerably. 
 
 rained heavily the night before, and Was not the passage between the 
 
 -he could not ke.ep an appointment ? Cardinal's Hall and the Cathedral 
 1 may have heard it. It is an indifferent blocked up with masonry ? It is quite 
 matter ! untrue.
 
 238 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Do you say people can go in and out You can see people going in and out. 
 there? Yts. Was not that door closed for months 
 
 What was the entrance like from in 1898 ? Never! It was never locked. 
 
 College Street ? It was blocked. It is one of the public entrances to the 
 
 How can people go in and out Cathedral. I can bring hundreds of 
 
 there? There is another passage. witnesses. 
 
 The Petitioner here introduced the question of an expression 
 which he said Mrs. Coningham would not tell him (the Petitioner) ; 
 but which Mr. Want had forced from her. Would Dr. O'Haran 
 swear that he had never made use of that expression ? Coningham 
 then handed the witness a paper. The witness gave the allegation 
 a fervid and emphatic denial. The Petitioner handed to Dr. 
 O'Haran another piece of paper, upon which he had written some- 
 thing, asking the witness if he knew the lady whose name was upon 
 the slip. The Doctor said he had heard of the person. Coningham 
 next asked the witness if he had made use of the expression, above 
 referred to, in the case of this person. The witness said no, nor to 
 any other. Mr. Want interjected that he was entitled to have the 
 initials of this mysterious unknown. During the former trial this 
 
 lady, Mrs. B , was brought up. He was entitled to have her 
 
 name brought out on this occasion. He did not want the whole 
 name, but the Jury was entitled to know that this was the lady in 
 connection with the " stout and oysters," and the getting-through- 
 the-window incident. Continuing, and in answer to the Petitioner, 
 Dr. O'Haran said that he had never heard the expression before. 
 He knew nothing of it whatever. It was most disgusting. The 
 subject \\ as one he had never discussed. Only a filthy mind could 
 think of such a thing. The Petitioner next asked the Doctor if, 
 when he took Mrs. Coningham down, the picket fence were there ? 
 Mr. Want objected the Doctor never said that he had taken Mrs. 
 Coninghain down. 
 
 Petitioner : You say there were nine- iS^S ? I saw her several times. I 
 
 teen steps to get to that picket fence? understood her to say she was at the 
 
 I said that there were nineteen or Grand Australian Fair in 1897. 
 
 twenty. You heard her swear that she thought 
 
 Then if you turn to the right and go you were going to take her into the 
 
 to the Cardinal's Hall you say there street? I heard her swear that. I 
 
 are seventeen steps ? There were would not be responsible for her 
 
 seventeen steps. I think there are thoughts, 
 
 eighteen or nineteen now. Nor her feelings ? No. 
 
 I am referring to 1898. So am I. If you wanted to take a woman into 
 
 Part of them were of stone, and part of the Hall to commit adultery you would 
 
 wood. There were nine wooden steps, not take her through the Cathedral for 
 
 the top one forming a step. Then there 5,000 people to see you? Certainly 
 
 were seven stone steps beneath that. not. 
 
 How often was Mrs Coningham in Is Father Byrne your confessor ?- 
 
 the Cardinal's Hall before this adul- ' -I refuse to give any information about 
 
 tery ? She may have been there a my confessor. 
 
 hundred times for all I know. You Is Cardinal Moran your confessor ? 
 
 took her there yourself. I refuse to answer. 
 
 Yes ; and it is the only time I ever Are you his ? 
 
 went. Will you swear you saw Mrs. His Honor: You are not bound to 
 
 Coningham there several times before answer.
 
 VERY REV. DR. DENIS FRANCIS O'HARAN, D.D. L 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR OF ST. MARV's CATHEDRAL, AND SECRETARY TO HIS EMINENCE 
 
 CARDINAL MORAN. 
 (Photo, by Falk's Studios, 496 George Street.)
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 2 39 
 
 Do you ever go out of Church during 
 the services ? I may have, but I do 
 not during Vespers. 
 
 Do you go out at any part of the 
 services ? What services do you mean ? 
 
 Any part of the services ? There are 
 services where every person concerned 
 goes out of the Church in the prr- 
 cession. 
 
 You say the Hall is lit at 7.30? 
 Yes. Those are my instructions. 
 
 What became of the key of the 
 Cardinal's Hall ? It was always re- 
 tained by our faithful servant, Mr. 
 Kelly. 
 
 Would he lock the door and go 
 away ? The key is on a large bunch . 
 He would not leave it there. I was 
 never there bet\veen Vespers and 8 
 o'clock. 
 
 How long have you had the big 
 couch in the Presbytery ? It was there 
 before I came to Australia. 
 
 That is the one now in the waiting- 
 room ? Yes. 
 
 When did you have it removed ? I 
 do not remember. 
 
 You distinctly said that the only 
 reason you had the couch removed was 
 that it blocked up the safe and was a 
 nuisance. You stood it for 16 years 
 until Mrs. Coningham began to visit 
 you ? I have not been Administrator 
 all the time. 
 
 When did you first become Adminis- 
 trator? Some time in 1896. 
 
 Were you Administrator in 1893 ? 
 I think I was in Europe in 1893. 
 
 Did you succeed Dr. Murphy as 
 Administrator ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember he had glass doors 
 and you had them removed ? Yes. I 
 had the glass removed because it got 
 broken. 
 
 Was there any investigation made 
 into your conduct in 1893 ' 
 
 Mr. Want: I object. We are not 
 here to try that. What has that to do 
 with this Case ? 
 
 Petitioner : We are trying this man. 
 They brought up Mrs. Coningham's 
 conduct 16 years ago, 
 
 His Honor : I think the question can 
 be asked. 
 
 Witness replied: I never kne\v any- 
 thing about any such inquiry. 
 
 Was it a standing joke about the 
 glass doors ? I never heard a joke 
 about it in my life. 
 
 You admit writing your initials on 
 that photograph ? Yes. 
 
 Did you blot it ? I think so. I am 
 not certain. 
 
 Were you not certain last trial ? I 
 was not. 
 
 The tattoo mark was spoken of. 
 Will you swear that is the only tattoo 
 mark on your body ? I have sworix 
 that already. 
 
 Will you pull your sleeve up and 
 show the Jury your arm ? 
 
 Witness (to the Judge) : Am I obliged 
 to do that ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Pull it up and show him. 
 
 Witness did so. 
 
 Did you tell Mrs. Coningham about 
 this tattoo mark? I never spoke to 
 Mrs. Coningham on the subject. 
 
 How did she know you had this 
 mark ? I do not know. 
 
 You say you christened a child of 
 Mrs. Coningham's? Yes, Mabel 
 Frances. 
 
 How do you know it is Frances ? I 
 looked up the registerand found it was 
 Mabel Frances. 
 
 Did you swear in the last trial that 
 Mrs. Coningham took a harp? I 
 swear that I unpinned the harp off my 
 coat ? I gave a shamrock to Miss 
 Sutherland, and Mrs. Coningham 
 
 ractically took the harp out of my 
 and. 
 
 To his Honor: I think I am entitled 
 to have that looked up in my previous 
 evidence ? 
 
 It was agreed that the matter should 
 be looked up during the lunch hour. 
 
 After lunch his Honor explained 
 that Dr. O Haran had said he un- 
 pinned from his coat a shamrock and 
 a harp. He gave the shamrock to 
 Miss Sutherland, and Respondent 
 took the harp out of his hands. 
 
 Petitioner : You swore before lunch 
 you did not give it to her. 
 
 Witness : I did not swear I did not 
 give it to her. 
 
 Petitioner: You did. 
 
 His Honor : You cannot contradict 
 a witness in that way. 
 
 Petitioner : You heard Mrs. Bostock 
 say she went down the Harbour in the 
 same boat that you went down in ;
 
 240 
 
 THE COXINGIIAM CASE. 
 
 were many people there? There were 
 a considerable number. 
 
 What do you call ' 'considerable"? I 
 did not count them ; perhaps there 
 were 50 or perhaps 100. 
 
 You never sat beside the Respon- 
 dent, as Mrs. Bostock says ? ( : rrainly 
 not. I sat in front of the childr-.-n . 
 
 Where were the children ? They 
 were sitting between Mrs.-Bostock and 
 your miserable wife. 
 
 Petitioner: I won't have my " miser- 
 able wife." I won't stand that. 
 
 Witness: You asked me a question, 
 and I answered it. 
 
 Petitioner: Well, I won't have that. 
 She -is "miserable," no doubt. Did 
 you send her an invitation to the 
 picnic? I did not. 
 
 What made you go to the picnic ? 
 T i place the receipts of the picnic in 
 the Cathedral safe, which I did, and I 
 took five or six witnesses with me. 
 
 I don't want your witnesses. You 
 heard Mrs. Bostock as well as Mrs. 
 Coningham say that after I went to 
 England with the cricket team you 
 w ere going to put Mrs. Coningham and 
 the children into a convent What 
 did you mean by that? I never meant 
 anything by that. I never said it. 
 
 You say you were insulted when 
 Mrs. Coningham offered you the baby? 
 
 When she attempted to offer it to 
 me. 
 
 Have you ever handled anyone 
 else's baby? I have never handled 
 anyone's baby, not that I remember. 
 
 Have you ever nursed anyone's baby ? 
 Not that I am aware of. 
 
 You saw the name I handed to you. 
 Have you ever nursed her baby ? No. 
 What nonsense ! I know nothing of 
 the lady you mentioned. 
 
 You do know her ? I have seen her. 
 
 You know nothing of her ? Nothing 
 whatever. 
 
 Did you ever toss my little fellow up 
 in the air ? Not that I am aware of. 
 
 We will ask the boy. You swear 
 
 Mrs. Coningham never told you 
 
 What are you laughing at ? You have 
 no right to laugh, 
 
 Witness : I was simply laughing at 
 you. I cannot help it. 
 
 The Petitioner then asked the Doctor 
 an especially gross question in connec- 
 tion with a certain woman. 
 
 The witness answered in the nega- 
 tive. 
 
 Did the woman whose name is on 
 the paper ? No. I swear it absolutely. 
 
 When she came to you with a 
 message in connection with the baptism 
 of the child did you swear that you told 
 them not to be going on *with such 
 nonsense ? A second time the message 
 came I swore that I did. 
 
 You heard the boy O'Brien, what he 
 swore. Is it correct ? It is his story. 
 
 Will you swear that you never sent 
 a message by Langton ? Not that I 
 am aware of. 
 
 Not that you are aware of a good 
 opening. You particularly mentioned 
 thatacerlain gentleman was coming 
 down from Trial Bay to give evidence 
 in respect of June 29. What did he 
 know about it? That is not a question 
 that I need answer in the present 
 matter. 
 
 Why did you pick out his name? 
 Because he was a material witness. 
 
 Why was his name brought out it 
 was not brought out last time? Wit- 
 ness replied that he mentioned ihename 
 in Court last time. 
 
 His Honor said he could not allow 
 June 29 to be again opened up. 
 
 Petitioner : You gave a photo to 
 Mrs. Atock. When was that initialled ? 
 I believe it was written at the close 
 of the Grand Australian Fair 
 
 You did not think of this photo at 
 the last trial? No, it was at Trial 
 Bay. 
 
 Will you swear the ink on this photo, 
 is not quite fresh ? Absolutely. 
 
 When did you receive this ^another 
 photograph) ? I did not receive it at 
 all 1 wrote my initials on it on the 
 date which appears on the photo.; I 
 really do not know the date by any 
 other means. 
 
 Petitioner: "February 3, 1901, "why 
 is that brought in. 
 
 Witness : I beg your pardon ; 1 did 
 not know that one. It is a photo, on 
 which I wrote by initials. It came from 
 New Zealand. 
 
 Will you swear that ink is not fresh ? 
 I will swear positively it was written 
 on the date which appears there. 
 
 "7/3/98." You will swear it was written 
 then ? Absolutely. Without any hesi- 
 tation at all. It came to me from New 
 Zealand within the last three months. 
 
 And this, asking Miss M'Donald for 
 an occasional little prayer is that writ- 
 ten at the same time ? Yes.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 2 4 I 
 
 Did you tell the boy when he came 
 HP ith the message that you would be 
 down in ten minutes to see baby? I 
 do not know exactly what the boy did 
 say. I certainly did not say it. 
 
 Mr. Want here interposed and read 
 a passage from the evidence taken at 
 the former trial: " I told the boy who 
 brought the message I had no time to 
 lose with such nonsense." 
 
 How many times did she (Respon- 
 dent) visit the Presbytery ? I do not 
 know. . 
 
 How many times did she visit you ? 
 I cannot sav. 
 
 A thousand ? Oh, what nonsense ! 
 
 Can you remember the date of that 
 child's baptism The last one? To- 
 wards the end of December in 1899, I 
 think. 
 
 When she (Respondent) said " Take 
 this child " did not she say " your 
 child?" -No. She did not. It is a 
 wicked idea. 
 
 When did you give your letters to 
 the Police? On the following day I 
 gave them to Mr. Slattery, and Mr. 
 Slattery handed them to the Police. 
 
 Were you present when Mr. Slattery 
 tooV them to the Police ? I saw them 
 with Mr. Camphin in Mr. Slattery's 
 presence. 
 
 When you went to the telephone on 
 the first occasion Mrs. Coningham 
 called, did you converse with her any 
 length of time ? No ; not half a minute 
 or a quarter of a minute. I rang her off. 
 
 Did you swear this morning that Mr. 
 
 Farrell was with you on both occa- 
 sions? I did not. 
 
 Mr. Want : He said there was no 
 one with him the first time, and on the 
 second he got a person to repeat it. 
 
 Why were you sorry vou could not 
 see her ? The usual courteous reply. 
 
 1 have never insulted a lady in my 
 life, and I hope never shall. 
 
 Do you send many letters to ladies ? 
 It is my du y. 
 
 Did vou ever correspond with Miss 
 S -? 
 
 Mr. Want : I object to this. What 
 have we got to do with this ? I object 
 to anything further except in con- 
 nec'ion with this Case. 
 
 His Honor : \Vhat has it got to do 
 
 with this Case ? Are you going to 
 make it part of this Case ? 
 
 Petitioner : I am going to try. 
 
 His Honor : If you show me the 
 letters I will be able to say. 
 
 Petitioner: I will come to it later on. 
 (To Witness) Have you ever seen Mrs. 
 Coningham at the Presbytery in even- 
 ing dress ? Yes, I believe, on one 
 occasion. I do not remember the date. 
 I believe it was early in January, 1899. 
 She came to propose to inaugurate a 
 theatrical entertainment for St. Mary s. 
 
 Petitioner: Have you ever been 
 alone in a lady's bedroom within the 
 last two or three years ? -Unless on a 
 sick call, I do not believe I have ever 
 been 
 
 Did you ever at St. Vincent's College 
 Chapel or St Mary's since the last 
 trial, or during the last trial, take the 
 Blessed Sacrament in your hand and 
 swear before \ our Jesus you were 
 innocent of this charge ? I swear I 
 never committed such a sacrilege I 
 object to the Blessed Name of Jesus 
 being put to me in such a way. 
 
 Did you swear *it in "the Church 
 without that in your hand?-! never 
 swore it in any Church 
 
 Afier the trial did you give a lecture 
 to the Children of St Mary's in con- 
 n< ction with this Case ? Certainly not. 
 I was put on my guard by my solicitors 
 not to speak of the Case, and I abso- 
 lu-ely swear that I faithfully carried 
 out my ins'ructions. 
 
 You know Madam ? No; 
 
 nothing whatever. I think I saw the' 
 name in ihe public press as proseciurix 
 or something. I know nothing about 
 h=r. You may have written to her for 
 all I know. 
 
 Have you been chaste all your life ? 
 I have been chased bv you and your 
 wife. (Laughter.) That is the only 
 time I have been chased. (Laughter.) 
 
 Mr Want : What sort of an examina- 
 tion is this ? What has it got to do 
 with the Case ? 
 
 Petitioner: It has a lot to do with 
 my Case. 
 
 His Honor: You cannot go over a 
 man's whole life 
 
 Petitioner : Have you ever been 
 alone with a female in the tower of St. 
 Mary's Cathedral ? No. There is no 
 tower to the Cathedral. 
 
 Did you ever pay for the support of
 
 242 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 a child from 1886 to 1893 ? Certainly 
 not. 
 
 Have you ever paid for the support 
 of a child ? No. 
 
 Since you joined the priesthood, you 
 have never been guilty of impropriety 
 with a female? I have answered that 
 question half a dozen times. 
 
 Mr Want : I object to this farce and 
 this mud-throwing. 
 
 Petitioner : You absolutely swear you 
 never supported a child ? Not on the 
 grounds you infer. 
 
 Have you supported any child ? I 
 have contributed to hundreds of chil- 
 drcn in institutions from charitable 
 motives. 
 
 Do you remember going to Rome in 
 1888? Yes, I believe I went there in 
 1888. 
 
 Do you remember meeting a iady irr- 
 the Church the week you went to- 
 Rome ? I may have met hundreds. 
 
 Petitioner : Have you ever written 
 letters to a lady in connection with 
 
 Mr. Want: I object. The lettt rs- 
 will speak for themselves if he admits' 
 them 
 
 Petitioner : Have you ever been 
 accused of taking liberties with a ser-- 
 vant ? I have sworn often that I have 
 taken no liberties with a servant. 
 
 This is a circus and not a Court, your 
 Honor. 
 
 Petitioner wrote a name on a piece 
 of paper, and asked if witness knew 
 anyone by that name. He replied that 
 he did not remember seeing the name 
 before. 
 
 Do you know a lady from New 
 Zealand of that name ? No, I do not. 
 
 Dr. O'Haran then, in answer to Coningham, gave the genesis of 
 the Passion Play. Mrs. Coningham had the arrangement of it 
 with Mr. Bentley. " Shecame tome and suggested that Mr. Bentley 
 should produce the play. I declined to have it, and said I would 
 consult my superiors. I did so, and when I was advised that 
 Mr. Bentley was a very eloquent man, and it might be some 
 edification for the children in the parish to produce the play I 
 accepted the matter. Mrs. Coningham said that Mr. Bentley had 
 come to Sydney, was anxious to settle down to teach elocution, 
 and would do the work gratuitously- I accepted it under those 
 conditions. Mrs. Coningham immediately rushed large advertise- 
 ments into the public press, to which I at once objected. I refused' 
 to have anything at all to say in such a movement, and said that if 
 the advertisements continued I would withdraw my connection" 
 from it. Subsequently I arranged the advettisements myself." 
 
 You presented Mrs. Coningham to 
 the Cardinal ? Yes. 
 
 Did you do that with many other 
 ladies ? Yes, very often. I presented 
 Mr. Walter Bentley, and, with him, 
 Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 Can yon give me any reason for your 
 putting a date on the photograph? 
 None whatever, beyond the fact that 
 Mrs. Coningham came on that date, 
 and I got rid of her as quietly as pos- 
 sible without offending her. She came 
 very brusquely and asked me to write 
 something, and I wrote as little as I 
 could. 
 
 You say she was rude ? - No, I said 
 she was very forward and brusque. 
 
 Do you drink strong liquors? No ; 
 never, 
 
 Have you ever taken wine in this 
 country ? Never. 
 
 Ever drink champagne ? Never in; 
 my life. 
 
 Benedictine ? Yes, occasionally 
 
 You said just now you never drink 
 wine? I don't know whether Benedic- 
 tine is a wine. 
 
 Petitioner wrote a name on a slip of 
 paper and asked if witness knew it. 
 
 Witness : I don't know the girl. I 
 may have seen her, but I do not re- 
 member it. 
 
 Another name was handed to witness,, 
 who said he knew it.
 
 THK SICOND TKI.M. 
 
 243 
 
 Did she lose her position in connec- 
 tir.n with you ? No, never. 
 
 A Juryman: May we not see the 
 ames, your Honor, so as to be able to 
 know the character of the people ? 
 
 His Honor : You have nothing to do 
 with anything outside the Trial. 
 
 Mr. Want : I would rather, your 
 Honor, t\ e Jury saw the names. 
 
 His Honor : Oh, very well. 
 
 The names were accordingly handed 
 to the Jury. 
 
 Another name was written by the 
 Petitioner and handed to the witness, 
 who was asked if he knew the position 
 she had held before she came into her 
 present position ? 
 
 Wittness : I don't know of any posi- 
 tion sbe held, but I know where she 
 came from. She was a servant in a 
 convent. 
 
 Were there any complain Is from one 
 of the reverend mothers in connection 
 with that servant ? None whatever. 
 
 Would the reverend mother allow 
 li?r to go back into the convent? I 
 ^lare say she would. The girl left the 
 convent of her own accord. 
 
 that name, but I do not know a lady of 
 that name. 
 
 Do you gamble ? I never was a good 
 gambler. I never gamble at all. I 
 never gamble anywhere. 
 
 Have you ever been playing cards at 
 Burwood all night ? I have never 
 played cards all night. 
 
 Have you ever come home from Bur- 
 wood by the first train in the morning? 
 (Laughter). 
 
 Mr. Want : Have you ever come in 
 by the front window, or with the milk? 
 (Laughter). 
 
 His Honor : There must be some 
 limit to this cross-examination. 
 
 Petitioner : Did you ever tear alady's 
 dress in a cab, and borrow a pin from 
 the driver to pin it up ? No. I don't 
 like to insult you, but I am very tired 
 of this. It is only "bluff" for the 
 Jury. 
 
 Mr. Want : Have you ever been in a 
 lady's room unless administering the 
 last rites of the Church or attending 
 sick calls or confessions ? 
 
 Witness : Never. 
 
 What was the position of the woman 
 who Petitioner said left the convent? 
 She was a faithful servant in a convent, 
 and is at present a servant at St. Mary's 
 Cathedral. She has been there three 
 or four years. 
 
 What about the person who was said 
 to have lost her position ? She was in 
 a convent, and left it through ill-health. 
 S he left in a most honourable way and 
 with all the sanction of her superior. 
 She holds an honourable position at 
 present. 
 
 Another name was written by the 
 Petitioner and handed to the witness. 
 
 Mr. Want: Your Honor, we will 
 have all th-se slips of paper with the 
 names written by the Petitioner marked . 
 He writes quickly now, but took a 
 quarter of an hour to write a sentence 
 for me. 
 
 Petitioner : Do you know the name ? 
 
 \Vitn ss : I know a photographer of 
 
 [It is worth while noting at this place the diabolical charac- 
 teristics of the Respondents' mental brain-mixture. On the I3th 
 of June she wrote a " confession " to her husband. On July loth 
 she wrote to Miss Shiel a hypocritical letter (see page 141) in which 
 she declares that this so wronged and injured man must keep her, 
 and work for it too !] 
 
 At this stage Mr. Want produced a framed picture, enclosing 
 'A group photograph of the present King of England and his 
 Consort, also their daughter (Princess Maude) and her husband 
 (Prince Karl). Counsel pointed out that the autographs of the 
 Royal personages were written on the black portion of the photo- 
 graph, and said he wished to show that Dr. O'Haran in doing the 
 same with his initials was following an ordinary practice. 
 It transpired that the photograph was obtained by the Danish 
 Consul of Sydney through the Danish Ambassador in London for 
 the purpose of being raffled at one of the Roman Catholic fairs 
 held in Svdnev.
 
 244 THE COXIN'GHAM CASE. 
 
 THE WAITARA ALIBI. 
 
 The Waitara episode was a huge stumbling-block to the Peti- 
 tioner. Witnesses came forward, not as single spies but in whole 
 battalions, to prove Dr. O'Haran's presence at the function of laying 
 the foundation-stone on the 3Oth April, 1899. The witnesses called 
 in this connection were : 
 
 Horace Campbell, Journalist, representing The Australian Star. 
 
 Hugh Alexander Piggott Conant, Journalist, on the staff of The 
 Catholic Press. 
 
 Henry Edward Jordan, J. P., residing near Hornsby Junction. 
 
 Sylvester Burke, Orchardist and Fruit-grower, residing near 
 Pymble. 
 
 Cornelius Joseph Morrissett, Officer of the Customs Department, 
 
 James Fitzgerald, living within 25 chains of the site of the con- 
 vent at Waitara. 
 
 John Wallace, Senior Constable. 
 
 Michael Kirby, the Priest in charge of Pymble District. 
 
 George Henry Barrow, a Reporter for the Sydney Morning 
 Herald. 
 
 Hamilton Gould Lyne, a Reporter for the Daily Telegraph. 
 
 Patrick James Butler, Articled Clerk in the office of Messrs, 
 Westgarth, Nathan, & Co, 
 
 James Killian, Hair-dresser, residing in Pitt Street, Sydney. 
 
 Horace Campbell deposed that he caught the 2.40 p.m. train 
 from North Sydney, and reached Waitara shortly after 3 o'clock. 
 Cardinal Moran and Dr. O'Haran arrived later. They were met by 
 a cavalcade, and a guard of honour. There was a dual ceremony. 
 The Cardinal blessed some building and laid the stone of another. 
 The witness left between 5 and half-past 5 o'clock. The Cardinal 
 and Dr. O'Haran had not then left. He could swear positively that 
 Dr. O'Haran was at Waitara all the afternoon up to the time he 
 (witness) left for Sydney. In answer to the Petitioner, Mr. Camp- 
 bell said that the ceremony itself took only a few minutes ; but some 
 of the speeches were very long-winded. Mr. Want supposed there 
 must have been some Members of Parliament present " Yes !' r 
 (Promptly-suppressed laughter). 
 
 At this stage the Court adjourned until 10 o'clock on the follow- 
 ing day (2ist March). 
 
 On the resumption of proceedings, Hugh Alexander Piggott 
 Conant, a journalist on the staff of the Catholic Press, was examined 
 by Mr. \Vant. The witness deposed that he was at Waitara on the 
 3Oth April, 1899. The Petitioner; here interjected: "Your Honor, 
 why do we want to go into this" side issue?" Mr. Want: "Side 
 issue, indeed !" His- Honor ruled that the evidence was material to- 
 the issues. Mr. Conant, continuing, said that the first time he saw 
 the Cardinal on that day was from the window of a railway carriage 
 as the train was passing Pymble Station. He was riding in a carriage
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 245 
 
 with Dr. O'Haran. They were being escorted by a cavalcade of 
 horsemen to Waitara. That was about quarter-past 3 o'clock. The 
 ceremony was arranged to commence at 3.30 p.m., but it must have 
 been quite 4 o'clock when they arrived. The Cardinal and the Doctor 
 were still at Waitara when the witness left by the 5.20 p.m. train. 
 He. (Mr. Conant) saw the Doctor and spoke to him, as he wanted to 
 get the names of several priests whom he did not know. No, witness 
 said he did not belong to the Catholic Faith ; but he had been in the 
 habit of visiting the Presbytery at St. Mary's, for the purpose of ob- 
 taining information, for nearly three years. He knew the office very 
 
 [Gmws//aK', the Private Detective to Coningham.}
 
 246 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 well. He had visited it several times. There was a couch on the 
 right-hand side of the room against the inner wall. It was lumbered 
 up with books and papers. He had frequently endeavoured to sit on 
 this couch, but had never succeeded in doing so comfortably. In 
 answer to the Petitioner, the witness said that he did not notice 
 whether the couch had been changed during his visits to the office. 
 
 Henry Edward Jordan, the next witness, did not belong to the 
 Catholic faith ; but he and his wife were invited to be present at the 
 laying of the foundation-stone of a foundling hospital on the day re- 
 ferred to. His daughter was also with them. The Cardinal and Dr. 
 O'Haran arrived about ten minutes to 4 o'clock. He (witness) left 
 at 5, while the ceremony was still in progress. 
 
 Sylvester Burke stated that he was one of the cavalcade that 
 met the Cardinal and Dr. O'Haran at Pymble and escorted them to 
 Waitara. He left Waitara after 5 o'clock, and the Cardinal and his 
 Private Secretary were still there. 
 
 Cornelius Joseph Morrissett stated that he was one of the guard 
 of honour that received the Cardinal at Waitara. Dr. O'Haran ac- 
 companied the Cardinal. They arrived at about 3.30 p.m., and were 
 still there when he (witness) left by the train at a quarter-past, or 
 twenty minutes past, 5 o'clock. In answer to the Petitioner, witness 
 did not see the Cardinal and his Private Secretary leave. Coningham 
 wanted to know what was going on when Mr. Morrissett left. The 
 witness replied that they were taking up a collection. He could not 
 say that it was about the middle of the ceremony. Mr. Want inter- 
 jected that it must have been near the end when the collection was 
 being taken up. Coningham retorted that it might have been in the 
 middle, because people sneaked away at the end of a ceremony. 
 
 James Fitzgerald deposed tha: he lived within 25 chains of the 
 piace where the foundation-stone was laid. He had charge of the 
 children who were to welcome the Cardinal, who arrived between 
 half- past 3 and 4 o'clock, with Dr. O'Haran. They had not left when 
 he (witness) departed at a quarter-past 5 o'clock. 
 
 Senior Constable John Wallace stated that he was at Waitara 
 on a Sunday afternoon at the blessing of the foundation-stone of the 
 new foundling hospital. He corroborated the evidence of previous 
 witnesses. 
 
 Father Michael Kirby, the priest in charge of the Pymble Dis- 
 trict (of which Waitara forms a part), stated that the Cardinal and 
 Dr. O'Haran left Waitara at about seventeen minutes past 5 on the 
 Sunday in question. Between a quarter-past 3 and half-past 5 on that 
 day Dr. O'Haran was under the observation of the witness. 
 
 George Henry Barrow, reporter on the staff of the Sydney Morn- 
 ing' Herald, stated that he was at Waitara on the 3Oth April, 1899. 
 He corroborated the evidence of previous witnesses. 
 
 Hamilton Gould Lyne, a reporter on the staff of the Daily 
 , made a sworn statement corroborating previous evidence.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 247 
 
 Patrick James Butler was another witness called in corrobora- 
 tion. 
 
 James Killian proved an exhilarating witness. He deposed that 
 he was a hair-dresser, residing in Pitt Street, Sydney. He was at 
 North Shore on the 3oth April, 1899. He came across by the quarter- 
 past 7 o'clock horse-punt. Cardinal Moran and Dr. O'Haran were in 
 a carriage on the same punt. He remembered the date very well 
 he had very good reason to do so. On that day he had a piece bitten 
 out of his leg by a mastiff dog. (Peals of laughter in Court ; re- 
 pressed with difficulty). Mr. Want said that they were getting some 
 funny developments in this Case. It would certainly go down to 
 posterity. (Laughter). Counsel then gravely asked witness whether 
 he still had any doubt about the date ? No, said the sufferer, with 
 emphasis, it was deeply impressed upon him. He also remembered 
 that the Cardinal's carriage arrived just after the barrier had been 
 lowered, and it had to be raised to let the carriage come aboard. 
 
 DR. O'HARAN'S PRESENCE AT LEWIS" -. 
 
 The Petitioner had no better luck with the Lewisham episode 
 and the ist April, 1899. The witnesses called in this connection 
 were : 
 
 Augustus Timothy M'Shane, an employee in the Money Order 
 Office in the Savings Bank. 
 
 Carlos H. Simmonds, labour agent. 
 
 William Richard Darvey, one of the secretaries of the Bazaar 
 held at Lewisham on Easter Saturday. 
 
 Thomas Phelan, the priest in charge at Lewisham. 
 
 Ellen M'Inerney, a stall-holder at the Lewish~-n Bazaar. 
 
 Augustus Timothy M'Shane stated, in reply to Mr. Ralston, 
 that he was present at the Lewisham Bazaar, held on the ist April, 
 1899. The Cardinal, accompanied by Dr. O'Haran, was present. 
 They had driven from Sydney, and arrived at a quarter-past 3, remain- 
 ing until a little after 5. Lewisham was about five miles from Syd- 
 ney. Witness was absolutely certain that between the times stated 
 Dr. O'Haran was at Lewisham. 
 
 Carlos H. Simmonds stated that he was one of the Bazaar Com- 
 mittee at Lewisham. He corroborated the evidence of the former 
 witness, and swore that Dr. O'Haran could not have been at St. 
 Mary's Cathedral at 4 o'clock on the afternoon of April ist, 1899. 
 
 William Richard Darvey, one of the Secretaries of the Bazaar 
 held at Lewisham on Easter Saturday, gave evidence of a similar 
 character. 
 
 Father Thomas Phelan, the priest in charge at Lewisham, stated 
 that he received the Cardinal on the occasion referred to. His 
 Eminence was announced to be on the grounds at 3 o'clock, but was 
 about twenty minutes late. It must have been fully 5 o'clock when 
 the Cardinal and Dr. O'Haran left for Sydney.
 
 248 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Ellen M'Inerney, one of the stall-holders at the Lewisham 
 Bazaar, gave corroborative evidence. Dr. O'Haran paid a visit to- 
 her stall at about half-past 4 o'clock. 
 
 THE ST. PATRICK'S NIGHT CONCERT. 
 
 The Petitioner's efforts to make St. Patrick's Night a date of 
 significance to his Case fell also to the ground. The testimony of 
 witnesses as to the Doctor's whereabouts on that particular date was 
 overwhelming. The witnesses called in this connection were : 
 
 Oliver Deane, a Town Hall employee of twenty years' standing. 
 Martin Carrick, the Mayor's Orderly at the Town Hall. 
 Thomas Edward Murphy, a Solicitor of the Supreme Court. 
 Bernard Francis Purcell, of the N.S.W. Government Railways 
 
 Department. 
 
 John Francis Hennessey, Architect. 
 Thomas Joseph M'Cabe, Salesman. 
 John Patrick Sheehan, Secretary of St. Vincent de Paul Society. 
 
 Oliver Deane, being examined and sworn by Mr. Want, stated 
 that he had been engaged at the Town Hall for twenty years. He 
 remembered St. Patrick's Concert held in the Town Hall on the 
 1 7th March, 1899. A. hitch occurred owing to the tickets not having 
 arrived when the doors were opened. He found out afterwards that 
 some dispute had arisen between the officers of the St. Vincent de 
 Paul Society. The Mayor's Orderly, therefore, sent a telephone 
 message to Dr. O'Haran, for whom they waited until twenty 
 minutes past 7 o'clock, when he arrived, bringing with him the 
 tickets. There was a gentleman with the Doctor, whom the witness 
 now knew to have been Mr. Purcell. . . . There was a great 
 rush for tickets up to 8 o'clock. Immediately after that hour the 
 witness saw Dr. O'Haran standing at the front door. He saw the 
 Doctor also in the vestibule, passing backwards and forwards a 
 little after 8 o'clock. In fact, he saw him up to the arrival of the 
 Cardinal: Dr. O'Haran waited at the door for his Eminence. The 
 Petitioner tried hard to break down Mr. Deane's evidence as to the 
 time, but failed utterly to do so. Mr. Want asked the witness if he 
 were a friend of Dr. O'Haran's ? No, neither did he belong to the 
 Doctor's Church ; but what he said at the former trial he said at 
 this one. 
 
 Martin Carrick was next called. In answer to Mr. Want he 
 said that he had been the Mayor's Orderly at the Town Hall for 
 fourteen years. He was in charge of the building on St. Patrick's 
 Night in 1899. He had to open the doors. There was a delay 
 through the tickets not being at the Hall for sale. He was present 
 at the telephone when it was rung up, and afterwards Dr. O'Haran 
 and Mr. Purcell arrived with the tickets. The Doctor entered by 
 th.6 side door where the night-watchman was stationed. That was 
 between a quarter-past and half-past seven, about five minutes after 
 the telephone message just sufficient time for a cab to travel down.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 249 
 
 Dr. O'Haran was present while the tickets were being distributed 
 among the ticket-sellers, the Doctor taking part in the distribution. 
 The doors, which should have been opened at 7 o'clock, were, to the 
 best of the witness's belief, not opened until twenty-five minutes 
 past. During the incoming of the crowd, Dr. O'Haran was about 
 the Hall, the main entrance, or the corridor, the whole time until the 
 concert began. He was under the observation of the witness from 
 the time the doors were opened. It was absolutely impossible for 
 him to have been at St. Mary's Cathedral with the Respondent 
 between 7.30 and 8 o'clock : he (Martin Carrick) would swear that 
 the Doctor was then at the Town Hall. The witness last saw the 
 Doctor after the concert was over- at about a quarter to ten or ten 
 o'clock. He swore at the former trial, and would swear then : 
 " Dr. O'Haran was so conspicuous about the place I could not help 
 seeing him. He was not out of my sight from 7.25 to 8.15." The 
 Petitioner (with reference to the time the tickets arrived, viz. r 
 between fifteen and eighteen minutes past 7) asked witness if he- 
 looked at his watch to fix the hour. Witness replied that the chime 
 had just struck the quarter. The Petitioner then tried to shake Mr. 
 Carrick's testimony with regard to the handling of the tickets by 
 reading an extract from evidence taken at the previous trial ; but 
 Coningham had fatuously stumbled on the wrong man's answers,, 
 and had to beg pardon ignominiously. In answer to Petitioner, 
 Martin Carrick said he had left the vestibule only once, for about 
 five minutes. Yes, he had seen the Doctor go away after the 
 concert was over. Witness was not a particular friend of Dr. 
 O'Haran he knew him, and was of the same Faith. He remem- 
 bered that the Doctor went out at the side-door at the Druitt Street 
 entrance. He believed he told Dr. O'Haran that the carriage was 
 at the side-door about 10 o'clock, after the concert. 
 
 Thomas Edward Murphy was called and examined by Mr. 
 Want. He deposed that he was a Solicitor of the Supreme Court, 
 and was, in 1899, President of St. Vincent de Paul Society. He 
 remembered the hitch' referred to, that occurred on St. Patrick's 
 Night Concert. The members of his Society had arranged to take 
 charge of the whole affair, but on arriving there at 6.30 found that 
 their places had been taken by the Town Hall officials. At 7 o'clock 
 he (witness) was asked where the tickets were. He replied that they 
 had nothing to do with the matter ; he did not know where they 
 were. The next thing was that Dr. O'Haran came and explained to 
 him how the hitch had occurred. That was at about twenty minutes 
 to 8 o'clock, after the first rush of people had gone through. He had 
 seen the Doctor two or three times afterwards on that night. The 
 Doctor was passing backwards and forwards as if he were looking 
 after things. Witness did not see him after that at the concert. 
 He collected some money and took it down to the Presbytery, where 
 he again saw the Doctor after the concert. He (witness) would say 
 that it M.-as not possible for Dr. O'Haran to have been in St. Mary's 
 Cathedral between 7.30 and 8 o'clock on that night. In answer to-
 
 250 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 the Petitioner, Mr. Murphy said that he arrived at the Town Hall 
 on the St. Patrick's Night in question at about 6.30 p.m. He was 
 standing in the vestibule or corridor all the time. He could not 
 remember that Dr. O'Haran was absent from the place from half- 
 past 7 till twenty minutes to 8. He was a friend of Dr. O'Haran's 
 no more than anyone else ; he belonged to the same Faith. Re- 
 . examined by Mr. Want, the witness said it was no part of Dr. 
 O'Haran's duty to be at the Town Hall his presence there was only 
 in consequence of the hitch. 
 
 Bernard Francis Purcell was called and examined by Mr. 
 Want. He stated that he was the Secretary for the Sports in con- 
 nection with the St. Vincent de Paul Society in 1899. He re- 
 membered going to St. Mary's Cathedral to consult with Dr. 
 O'Haran about the Sports. He was there at about 6.30. Kelly 
 went upstairs with a message from him. He waited half an hour. 
 Dr. O'riaran came down after a telephone message had come 
 through. He (witness) was close to the telephone. The Doctor 
 spoke, to witness, ' went into the office, and then came out very 
 quickly with a parcel. When it was undone he saw that it contained 
 tickets. The Doctor and he went away together in a cab. That 
 was a little after 7 between 7 and a quarter-past. They drove to 
 the Town Hall. The doors were not open. Dr. O'Haran undid the 
 parcel, and was about to give the tickets to the ticket-sellers when 
 he (witness) left. The witness further deposed that he saw Dr. 
 O'Haran twice before the concert commenced at the Town Hall, 
 .and he saw him also at the close of the concert, at about five 
 minutes to 10 o'clock. 
 
 Petitioner : What time did you arrive one thing then, and you swear another 
 
 at the Presbytery on the night of the now ! 
 
 concert? - About 6.30 p.m. Witness : I do not ! 
 
 Whom did you see there ?- Kelly. Petitioner: Your memory is not 
 
 I went upstairs and sat down alongside good ! 
 
 the telephone. It commenced ringing Witness : Not as good as yours ! 
 
 and Kelly went to it. Petitioner: I don't want any of your 
 
 Did you say at the last trial that it insulting remarks ! 
 
 was Dr. O'Haran that went to the Witness : Nor do I, either ! 
 
 telephone ? Not on that occasion. His Honor : Be good enough to hold 
 
 Petitioner (reading from the short- your tongue, Mr. Coningham ! 
 hand report of the previous hearing) : Mr. Want : There were two tele- 
 Did you not say this at th : last trial: phone messages, your Honor, and the 
 "I saw the attendant, Mr. Kelly. I answer of the witness now is to a 
 said something to him. We conversed different message from that to which his 
 for a few minutes, and then he left me answer referred at the last trial, 
 in the Hall, and went upstairs. I Witness : I would like to have the 
 waited in the Hall for nearly half an matter cleared up, your Honor. It is 
 hour, and then Dr. O'Haran came to not clear now. 
 
 me after Kelly had left rne I had some His Honor : It will be for the Jury 
 
 conversation with Dr. O'Haran. I to deal with that. 
 
 remember the telephone ringing. Dr. Petitioner: Is what you swore at the 
 
 O'Haran went to the telephone." Did last trial incorrect ? No. It is per- 
 
 you say that ? You may have it there, fectiy correct I have a newspaper 
 
 but I did not say it. report of the answer. 
 
 Petitioner : Well, it is in the short- 
 
 .hand report of the trial. You swore What time did the concert terminate?
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 At six minutes to 10 o'clock. He 
 was so struck with its early termina- 
 tion that he took out his watch and 
 looked at it. 
 
 You have a wonderful memory. 
 Where were you at twenty minutes 
 past 8 o'clock last night ? In a train. 
 
 Petitioner : You have a marvellous 
 memory. 
 
 Witness : Yes, it is equ~l to yours. 
 
 Do you know anyone ot that name. 
 
 Mr 'Want : It is that of Mrs. B , 
 
 your Honor. 
 
 Witness : I saw a woman who told 
 me that such was her name. 
 
 Where did you see her? On March 
 the yth, behind Oxford Street. 
 
 Why did you go to see her ? 1 heard 
 there was a woman saying certain 
 things, and I went to see her. 
 
 Did you try to persuade her to come 
 here as a witness ; No, I did not ! 
 
 Did you take anyone with you? 
 Yes. 
 
 What is the person's name ? Do you 
 want me to mention his name? It 
 might not do him any good, as he is in 
 business. 
 
 His Honor said it might be well to 
 write the name down. The witness 
 wrote down the name. 
 
 Petitioner : Have you been busying 
 yourself about the Case a lot ? No ! 
 
 Will you swear you never asked a 
 woman to bring Mrs B up to see 
 
 you ? Yes, I will swear it. 
 
 A woman did see you ? Yes, she 
 told me you were bribing a witness by 
 offering her some money. I learned 
 from an anonymous letter that you 
 were bribing some woman. 
 
 Will you swear you never went to 
 the woman from the Co-respondent ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you not try to persuade her not 
 to come here ? I tried to persuade her 
 to come and speak the truth. 
 
 Did Mrs. B , whom you saw, tell 
 
 you that everything in the anonymous 
 letter was true? She did not speak to 
 me about the letter. She told me that 
 Coningham had given her fruit, whisky, 
 and a pair of boots (laughter), and that 
 her husband refused to eat the fruit 
 because he krew how it had come. 
 (Laughter). The gentleman who was 
 with me heard her say that. 
 
 Mr. Want : In consequence of some- 
 
 thing you heard you went to Mrs. 
 
 C 's place ? Yes, I went there orr 
 
 my own account, and not through any- 
 thing I heard from Mr Slattery or Dr. 
 O'Haran. 
 
 John Francis Hennessey, architect, 
 stated that he took a prominent part in 
 the concert given at the Town Hall on 
 St Patrick's Night, 1899. He was a- 
 member of the St. Vincent de Paul 
 Society On the evening in question 
 he was the first to arrive at the Town 
 Hall, reaching there at a quarter to- 
 seven. ... A telephone message 
 was sent, and Dr. O'Haran and Mr. 
 Purcell came to the Hall Witness 
 was standing in the front corridf r 
 between the vestibule and the porch, 
 and saw them enter. They brought 
 the tickets with them It was then 
 certainly some minutes after a quarter- 
 past 7, and certainly some minutes 
 before half-past 7. The doors were 
 opened a very few minutes after the 
 tickets were brought . . - Dr. 
 O'Haran remained in the Hall until 8- 
 o'clock witness would swear that 
 absolutely It was altogether impssi- 
 ble for the Doctor to be at St. Mary s 
 Cathedral between half-past 7 and 8- 
 o'clock Dr O'Haran usually went to 
 the concerts with his Eminence the 
 Cardinal. Only in the case of the 
 concert of 1899 did he come by him- 
 self The non-arrival of the tickets 
 was the sole cause of the delay in open- 
 ing the doors Dr. O'Haran was in 
 the Hall until somewhere about 10 
 o'clock, when the concert closed. In 
 answer to the Petitioner, the witness 
 said that the telephone message wr.s 
 sent about ten minutes past 7 Witness 
 did not see Dr. O'Haran arrive in a 
 cab, but saw him enter the corridor 
 with Mr Purcell Dr. O'Haran was 
 showing the people to their seats 
 between a quarter to 8 and ten minutes 
 past 8 The Doctor was never absent 
 from his (\vitness') sight for five 
 minutes' duration between the times 
 mentioned When the Doctor arrived 
 there were probably sixteen or twenty 
 people standing about in the vestibule. 
 As far as witness knew Dr. O'Haran 
 did not leave the Hall from 8 till 10 
 o'clock. He was sitting in front of 
 witness, who had an easy view of him 
 during the evening. He (witness) had 
 seen Dr. O'Haran in the Hall, in the 
 corridor, and in the vestibule. Wit- 
 ness could swear that the concert had 
 not finished at twenty minutes to 10.
 
 252 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Thomas Joseph M'Cabe, salesman, Dr. O'Haran arrived there at about a 
 
 stated that on the night of the concert quarter to 4 (as far as witness could 
 
 he had a roving commission in assist- remember) accompanied by a number 
 
 ing to place the ushers and others in of horsemen. On the night of the xyth 
 
 their places. He saw Dr. O'Haran March he could swear positively that 
 
 alight from a hansom at the Town Hall the doors of the Town Hall were thrown 
 
 fcstween five minutes past 7 and a open immediately before the clock 
 
 .quarter-past. That was as near ;,s wit- chimed 
 
 ness could remember. He saw the John Patrick Sheehan, the Secretary 
 Doctor moving about the iLill, the of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, 
 vestibule, and the corridor beiure 8 stated that he saw Dr. O'Haran, ac- 
 o'clock. The witness said that he had companied by Mr. Purcell, arrive at 
 four separate interviews with the Co- the Town Hall at about a quarter-past 
 respondent between half-past 7 and 8 7. This witness saw Dr. O'Haran con- 
 o'clock on the subject of the refresh- tinually before 8 o'clock, and could not 
 ments that were to be supplied to the have missed him for more than five 
 artists. Witness was also at Waitara minutes at a time, 
 on April 3oth, 1899. The Cardinal and 
 
 EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PROCESSIONAL NIGHT : JULY 3RD, 1898. 
 
 Henry Tomlinson, the editor of the Licensing Guardian, said 
 he was not a witness at the last trial, but he saw something about 
 it in the papers, and volunteered certain information. In answer to 
 Mr. Want, witness remembered the 3rd July, 1898. He was then a 
 new arrival in Sydney. In the morning of the day mentioned he 
 went to Mass, and in the afternoon he boarded a Parramatta steamer. 
 He was present at the ceremony of laying a foundation-stone by the 
 Cardinal. He went to a place between Ryde and Gladesville, and 
 attended the procession at St. Mary's in the evening. It was the 
 first procession he had seen at the Cathedral, and he was anxious to 
 compare it with those at which he had been present elsewhere. He 
 sat close to the space set apart for the choir, by one of the pillars, 
 about a couple of yards from the Sanctuary. He was in close touch 
 with everything that went on, and he sat throughout the whole of 
 the ceremony. Witness stated emphatically that Dr. O'Haran was 
 not, during that night (3rd July), once absent from the performance 
 of his duty. Yes, he (Mr. Tomlinson) knew Dr. O'Haran, and 
 respected him. He then explained how, on one of the nights in the 
 week, when there was an ordination service, he saw a tall priest with 
 the- Cardinal, and upon inquiry was informed that the ecclesiastic in 
 question was Dr. O'Haran, he was thus able to recognise him on 
 the processional night. He was ready to swear that the Doctor was 
 not out of his sight for a minute during the processional service of 
 the 3rd July. He saw him (Dr. O'Haran) assist in putting on the 
 Cardinal's vestments, after which he went to the side of the 
 Sanctuary. Witness, in further examination, said he saw the whole 
 of the Procession, and he saw Dr. O'Haran attending to it.. After 
 the service he fetched the small canopy to put over the Sacrament, 
 and then held it over the Cardinal. Finally there, was the Bene- 
 diction. He could swear to the date on account of two circum- 
 stances : It was the first service he had been at St. Mary's, and it 
 was the Sunday upon which he had gone to Ryde to hear the
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 253 
 
 Cardinal speak. It was not possible for Dr. O'Haran to have been 
 
 absent at half-past seven o'clock. 
 
 MR. TOMLINSON IS CROSS-EXAMINED. 
 
 To Petitioner, the witness denied having told anyone that he 
 would like to be in the Coningham' Case. After reading the evidence 
 about the ist April, and seeing that the Petitioner relied on the 3rd 
 July, 1898, the latter date came to his mind. From the time the 
 Procession started on that particular night he saw the whole of it. 
 and he also saw the Doctor during the whole time, with the 
 exception of about a minute. 
 
 THE EVIDENCE OF THE CLERK OF THE WORKS. 
 
 Samuel Barr. Clerk of the Works, now being carried on at St. 
 Mary's Cathedral, was called, and stated that the plan produced 
 correctly represented the state of affairs at St. Mary's in 1898. The 
 Cathedral was not boarded up in such a Avay that anyone standing 
 at the Sanctuary would be unable to see the procession. (Witness 
 here pointed out to his Honor where, on the plan, there was a wall 
 between the fern -house and the Cathedral ; also where there was an 
 old fence near the Presbytery). Mr. Want enquired whether 
 anyone leaving the Sacristy, and walking round the asphalt between 
 the fernery and the Cathedral, could proceed to the Cardinal's Hall. 
 Mr. Barr said that anyone could do so at present but that was only 
 since 1900. In 1898 the place was absolutely blocked, unless a 
 ladder were used to get over the wall. It was quite impossible for 
 the Respondent to go from the boys' Sacristy, and pass between the 
 fern-house and the Cathedral, on the way to the Cardinal's Hall 
 the way was blocked by a g-ft. wall, a fence topped by barbed wire, 
 and the leg of a crane used for hoisting stone. If anyone, on July 
 3rd, 1898, went down the steps to the Presbytery, and then walked 
 up the passage between the Cardinal's Hall and the Cathedral, he 
 would come up again to the same level at which he started. In 
 1898 seventeen steps had to be descended to reach the Cardinal's 
 Hall from the Cathedral. There were ten wooden steps and seven 
 stone steps. With the exception that those of wood had been 
 replaced with others of stone, and an additional step added, the 
 place was exactly in the same state as it was in 1898. The porch 
 which now covers the southern door of the Cathedral was not in 
 existence in July, 1898. The porch was erected since then to keep 
 the rain from driving in the doorway. That door was always kept 
 open, and Dr. O'Haran insisted upon its being kept open. If anyone 
 were in the Cardinal's Hall, he or she could be seen by a person 
 standing or sitting in the Cathedral, and looking through the 
 southern door. Anyone passing between the Cardinal's Hall and 
 the Cathedral could be seen through that door. On one night he 
 (witness) had been present at a processional ceremony, and the 
 southern door of the Cathedral was open on that night. 
 
 The Petitioner cross-examined the witness with regard to the 
 number of steps, without eliciting any further information about
 
 254 
 
 THE CONIXGKAM CASE. 
 
 them. In answer to Mr. Want, the witness said that the boarding 
 was put in the Cathedral in 1899, not in 1898. But boarding or no- 
 boarding, any person standing at the altar and looking down the 
 Church would not have his view impeded. Dr. O'Haran ordered 
 the keeping of a clear passage at the southern door, so as to enable 
 the Sisters or the children to come from the Cardinal's Hall right. 
 up the steps and enter the Cathedral by the southern door. 
 
 At this stage the Court adjourned until loa.m. on the following 
 day. 
 
 The ninth day's proceedings (March 22nd) were opened by the 
 Judge handing over to the Sheriff another anonymous letter, with 
 instructions to give it to the Police. Throughout the trial the 
 anonymous letter nuisance continued. Attempts were made to 
 influence the Jury and worry the Judge in the Case; but his Honor 
 invariably handed over all these precious epistles to Mr. Sheriff 
 Maybury, with instructions to place them in the hands of the 
 Police. 
 
 Mr. Want tendered the railway time- 
 table for April, 1899, with respect to 
 the Waitara incident. The time-table 
 showed that a train left Waitara at 
 5.18. "That," said Mr. Want, "shows 
 that the witnesses are not very far out. 
 The train reaches Milson's Point at 
 5-56." 
 
 His Honor : Of course, it is sixteen 
 miles ; and the evidence is that thev 
 
 caught they. 15 punt coming back. 
 
 George Stuart Brown said that he- 
 was the builder of the convent at 
 Waitara, and was present at the cere- 
 mony on April 30, 1899. The Cardinal 
 and Dr. O'Haran came up by road, and 
 reached there between 3 and 4. When 
 witness left, at about 5 o'clock, Dr. 
 O'Haran was still there. 
 
 LANGTON IN THE BOX. 
 
 Patrick Eangton said he was the Sacristan of St. Mary's Cathe- 
 dral, and had been in that position for fourteen or fifteen years. He 
 knew Mrs. Coningham well by sight, and had known her coming to 
 St. Mary's for three years. 
 
 Do you remember on one occasion 
 Mrs. Coningham giving you a letter, 
 and taking it to Dr. O'Haran ? Yes ; 
 she gave me an envelope, and said it 
 twas her bench money. I felt some- 
 hing like a sovereign in it as I went 
 down. 
 
 Did she ever give you a letter to take 
 to Miss Shiel ? Not a letter; it was a 
 bit of a note. 
 
 What did you do with it ? - She wrote 
 it under the lamp, and Dr. O'Haran, 
 seeing I had some papers in my hand, 
 and thinking they were on Church busi- 
 ness, he took the paper, and when he 
 saw it was for Miss Shiel he handed it 
 back to me. 
 
 Do you remember her coming down 
 to the Cathedral and seeing you shortly 
 before this Case commenced ? Yes. 
 
 Do you remember what she said when 
 she first came ? I was at the back of 
 the high altar, and she came up to me, 
 and said she saw Dr. O'Haran going to 
 a funeral. "What time will he be 
 back," says she. " I don't know," sa>s 
 I.' 1 "It depends whether they go to 
 Rook wood or not." 
 
 You remember her coming back ? 
 She said she'd wait, and come back. 
 Wherever she was watching, she came 
 into the Church and told me Dr. 
 O'Haran was home. It was at about 
 half-past 5, 
 
 What did she ask you then ? She 
 asked me if I'd go to Dr, O'Haran with 
 a message. I says, " I don't like going 
 with these messages," and she says, 
 " It's more in Dr. O'Haran's way than 
 mine. I want to see him on particular
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 255 
 
 business." She says she wanted to 
 kno M could he stop this law. She saj s 
 she didn't know how she was to go to 
 Court. 
 
 What did you say when she said she 
 wanted to know if he could stop her 
 going to Court? I says, "Could he 
 do that?" " I don't know whether he 
 could or not," says she. 
 
 Witness: I saw Dr. O'Haran, and 
 told him. 
 
 Mr. Want: What did he say? He 
 says, " I will not see Mrs. Coningham 
 to save myself or the Church." 
 
 Before that did Mrs, Coningham say 
 anything to you about the Case ? Yes. 
 About a month before she told me 
 everything. That was not the time of 
 the funeral. The last time she came 
 was the time of the funeral. On the 
 night of the big concert 1 was locking 
 the big door on the College Street side. 
 I had left the southern door open, be- 
 cause the bell-ringers were coming. 
 When I turned round she was in the 
 Church by thedoor on the priest's house 
 side. The door that looks on to the 
 Presbytery. When 1 came up she asked 
 
 me if Miss Shiel was there. "No," 
 says I, " you'll not get Miss Shiel here 
 to-night. She's gone to the concert." 
 She brought me up one side of the 
 Church. She asked me if I ever took 
 notice of Dr. O'Haran and herself. I 
 says, " No, what notice should I take 
 of you and Dr. O'Haran the more than 
 any other lady coming to theChurch ?" 
 She says, ' ' Do you remember the night 
 you came and took me into theChurch 
 and brought me through the Sacristy, 
 and when we came to the outside door 
 I met Dr. O'Haran ?" She says, "Dr. 
 O'Haran met me at the door, and says 
 1 That will do, Langton ; I'll see Mrs. 
 Coningham out.' " I says, "That never 
 happened, and so long as I' vebeen con- 
 nected with the Church I've never had 
 anything to do of the sort," She says, 
 ' ' We came out by the corner of the 
 fern-house between the gable end of the 
 Cathedral, and then down into the Car- 
 dinal's Hall." I says " No," She says, 
 " You saw Dr. O'Haran open thedoor." 
 ' ' No," says I ; "so long as I've been at 
 St. Mary's I've never known Dr. 
 O'Haran to carry the key of that door." 
 
 HE'D TURN PROTESTANT IN THE MORNING. 
 
 What else did she say? She said 
 that they had been intimate there that 
 night. 
 
 When she said she went between the 
 fernery and the gable-end, what did 
 you say? I said she couldn't go that 
 way. 
 
 You said that to her? Oh, no. 
 (Laughter.) I didn't say it to her. I 
 said it here in Court last time. 
 
 Did she fix any time for it that she 
 went there ? No. Never mentioned 
 it. 
 
 Didn't fix any night? No. 
 
 Now, when, she told you that there 
 had been misconduct down there, what 
 did you say? I said, " What," says I, 
 ' is that the truth ?" "Yes," she says. 
 She told me that, and. says I, "What?" 
 says I, "Is that the truth," says I ; and 
 she says, " Yes," says she ; and I says, 
 " If that's the truth," says I, " I'd turn 
 Protestant in the morning." "And 
 what religion would we have then," 
 says I. " The Salvation Army," says 
 she (Laughter). 
 
 You haven't turned Protestant yet 
 (Laughter) ? Well, I didn't yet, any- 
 how." 
 
 \Vhen was it she told you ? On the 
 night of the big concert ? Yes. 
 
 Do you know Miss Shiel ? Yes. 
 
 Was she a good deal at the Cathe- 
 dral ? That night ? 
 
 No, at any time? Oh, yes. She's 
 one of the principal ladies we have got, 
 doing the altars. 
 
 Was she often there with Mrs. Con- 
 ingham ? -Yes ; I have seen her in the 
 Sacristy with her. 
 
 You say Dr. O'Haran hadn't the key 
 of the place. Who had ? Kelly was 
 the person. (Laughter). 
 
 Now, go back as far as July, 1898. 
 Could anyone at that time pass between 
 the fern-house and the Church to go 
 down to the Cardinal's Hall ? Well, 
 I never minded any dates or anything 
 of the work outside, but I know at the 
 time she says she went there she 
 couldn't get down around there, nor I 
 couldn't. (Laughter). 
 
 The witness then explained how the 
 passage was blocked up ; how the 
 fernery was always locked ; certain de- 
 tails about the Cardinal's Hall, Dr.' 
 O'Haran's duties, etc.
 
 256 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 LANGTON CROSS-EXAMINED. 
 
 The Petitioner then cross-examined the witness. 
 
 How many messages have you taken 
 to the Co-respondent from Mrs. Con- 
 ingham ? I took two. 
 
 Was that one to the Presbytery and 
 one to his box ? I never took one to 
 his box. Never ! 
 
 What were the two messages ? One 
 was a letter with the bench-rent in it. 
 
 What was the other ? One was a 
 letter she gave me at the Cathedral 
 door. She says, " Will you give that 
 to Dr. O'Haran?" and she commenced 
 laughing. When I see her laughing I 
 threw it on the ground, and I says, 
 " Take it yourself," I says. Then she 
 says, "Won't you take it? It's very 
 important " I took it, and it wasn't 
 lor Dr. O'Haran at all. It was for 
 Miss Shiel. They were getting a 
 machine for the Sewing Guild, and he 
 says that there was a secretary and a 
 treasurer, and he didn't want no out- 
 siders interfering. 
 
 Did you go back and tell her that ? 
 No. He says the letter was for Miss 
 Shiel, and I took it and gave it to Miss 
 Shiel, 
 
 What did the Co-respondent say 
 about it, do you say? He says it was 
 about a sewing-machine, and Mrs. 
 Coningham was making out she was 
 such a big woman she was going to get 
 it for half-price. And he said, said he, 
 
 that he didn't want no outsiders inter- 
 fering in the matter. 
 
 Did you swear last time that you 
 only took one message from Mrs. 
 Coningham to Dr. O'Haran ?-- Yes, I 
 did. 
 
 Why did you swear that, when you 
 say now you took two? Because its 
 been running through my mind about 
 the other ever since. 
 
 And now y ou swear there were two 
 which is right? Two's right. 
 
 You say that when she came in on 
 this particular night and told you this 
 rigmarole about the fern-house she took 
 you to one side ? Yes. 
 
 Were there many peoplo there ? 
 There was one young fellow with me, 
 and he was over on the other side of 
 the Church. (Laughter.) 
 
 He was with you, and he was on the 
 other side of the Church? -Yes. I 
 mean he was in the Church with me. 
 (Laughter ) 
 
 You were goi~g towards her, you 
 say, and she took you to the door ? 
 Yes ; she could tell me just as easy 
 where I was, though. 
 
 You don't remember the date? No; 
 only that there was a concert, because 
 I said Miss Shiel was going too. That's 
 the first time I heard one ha'porth 
 about it; and I didn't want to hear 
 anything about it then, either. 
 
 THERE WAS NO READING ON IT. 
 
 Did you read the letter she gave 
 you ? No ; I only saw the envelope. 
 
 Did you read it ? Do you mean the 
 slip of paper ? 
 
 Did you read it ? If you mean the 
 one she wrote in the Church, under the 
 lamp, there was no reading on it. It 
 was only a word or two to Miss Shiel 
 to meet her. (Laughter.) 
 
 You did read it, then ? I never told 
 you I read it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you ever see the Co-respondent 
 speak to her? Only to bid her good 
 evening as he was going to the con- 
 fession. He used to say good evening 
 to all the ladies when he'd meet them 
 in the Church. 
 
 When she gave you the first message, 
 where was she? In the Church. 
 
 Where were you when you got the 
 second message ? I was sitting on a 
 
 bench outside the Sacristy door. It was 
 late in the evening. About 7 o'clock. 
 
 Did you ever tell anybody that she 
 gave you a message, and you took it 
 down to the Presbytery ? No ; I 
 cannot remember I did. She gave me 
 a message in the Church and another 
 outside. 
 
 The night of the concert, did she tell 
 you she was going to have a case ? 
 She told me she thought Mr. Coning- 
 ham was going to have a case against 
 Dr. O'Haran. 
 
 Did you say that last time ? I was 
 not asked that question. The night of 
 the concert she told me all those 
 things. 
 
 Was it two months before you were 
 in here last time ? I could not say. I 
 don't keep any dates because it is very 
 little I mind outside at all.
 
 THB SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 257 
 
 Have you ever seen Mrs. Coning- 
 ham in the Co-respondent's company 
 in the Sacristy ? 1 have. 
 
 Did you ever see Mrs. Coningham in 
 the Cardinal's Sacristy? No, never. 
 
 Do you keep the key of that ? Yes. 
 
 Always ? Except when I am going 
 out like this. 
 
 Then where do you put it? I give 
 it to the man who takes my place. The 
 keys have always to be there. 
 
 Has the Co-respondent often had the 
 keys of that from you ? No, never. 
 
 Did you swear last time that you 
 always take the keys of the Sacristy 
 when you leave the Church ? Yes ; if 
 I'm only going for a couple of minutes. 
 It's different if I'm going for half aday, 
 or coming here. Then I don't know 
 when I'll be back, and a priest might 
 want 10 go to a marriage or a baptism, 
 and he couldn't get in. I leave them 
 with the man that takes my place. If 
 I'm going home at night, or at dinner 
 time or tea time, I take them 
 
 What time do you close up ? It all 
 depends. On Monday it's 8, on 
 Tuesdays it's 8, on Wednesdays, 
 with the practices and the Bene- 
 diction, it may be near 10. 
 
 Did you ever close up at half-past 
 S ? Did I ever ? Yes, I did. 
 
 Have you ever opened the Presbytery 
 door for Mrs. Coningham ? No ; I 
 never open the door for anyone. 
 
 Did you ever see her there ? No. 
 
 Did you ever see me ? I saw you 
 once there, but I didn't know it was 
 you. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did you ever see me there, and 
 stand talking for ten minutes ? - No ; I 
 saw you there one time. You had a 
 big frock-coat on. Someone said you 
 were Mr. Coningham. I saw you going 
 out. I only saw your back. 
 
 Petitioner: Well, you're a beauty. 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you hear that, your 
 Honor ? 
 
 When was that ? In the evening. 
 
 Will you swear it was not in the 
 morning ? Yes, I will. 
 
 What do you call evening? Oh, 
 some time in the afternoon. 
 
 You didn't know me? Yes, how 
 could I know you. (Laughter.) 
 
 Did she tell you when this affair was 
 supposed to have taken place ? Did 
 she tell me? Yes. She told me there 
 was going to be law over it. 
 
 Did she say when this adultery 
 .occurred ? In the Cardinal's Hall. 
 
 When, not where ? She told me no 
 dates. 
 
 Did she say Julys? She said the 
 night he took her round the fern-house, 
 as she sa>s. 
 
 Did she tell you the date ? No ; I've 
 told you that three times already. 
 (Laughter.) 
 
 Was there a passage there that night 
 near the fern-house ? No, she couldn't 
 go that way, nor I couldn't myself un- 
 less I got a ladder. (Laughter). 
 
 Was that in September ? - No, it was 
 
 HOt. 
 
 ' When was it ? It wasn't that time 
 of year at all. I don't know the date. 
 
 That was in September ? No. It 
 was in September that I could remem- 
 ber it. (Laughter), 
 
 When you say that the Co-respon- 
 dent said he wouldn't see her, to save 
 himself and the Church 
 
 Mr. Want : " Or" the Church, 
 please. 
 
 Petitioner: " Or" the Church, how 
 long.did she wait ? I don't know. I 
 don't think I went back to her. 
 
 Did she go away ? I don't know. I 
 don't think I went to give her the mes- 
 sage. 
 
 What happened after, then ? Noth- 
 ing. (Laughter). 
 
 Wasn't there a big crane in front of 
 the southern door in 1898 and 1899 ? 
 I think there was. 
 
 During the time that was being built 
 was that door open every night, or 
 locked ? It is not opened every night. 
 
 It is not opened every night ? No. 
 I lock it every night at about 6 o'clock 
 myself, or a little later, it may be, per- 
 haps. 
 
 Do you ever remember the Children 
 of St. Mary going out of the Cardinal's 
 Hall by any other door, to go into the 
 Cathedral for the procession ? I never 
 remember it. 
 
 Is the Hall locked on other nights ? 
 Yes ; every night. 
 
 Could the Co-respondent be away 
 from any of his duties on the proces- 
 sional night without your missing him ? 
 No. Not for a minute. 
 
 Not even when you take a walk round 
 the Church ? Not even when I take a 
 walk round the Church. (Laughter.) 
 I always know where he is. 
 
 Who keeps the key of the fern- 
 house ? I do. 
 
 Always ?- Yes. 
 
 When is it used ? Any time it is re-
 
 THE COMNGHAM CASE. 
 
 quired. When the ferns ara watered. 
 Perhaps even- evening, or every second 
 evening. It is attached to a bunch, 
 kept mostly in my coat pocket. 
 
 Do you ever remember the Co-re- 
 spondent sending you a message in the 
 day-time ? - He never sent me on one 
 since the day I went to the Church. He 
 would not allow me. 
 
 Did you ever notice a lot of masonry 
 between the Cardinal's Hall and the 
 Church ? Yes, I remember I saw a big 
 heap of stone there. From the College 
 Street side you could not pass between . 
 the Cardinal's Hall and the Cathedral, 
 There was a great heap of stone and 
 timber there. 
 
 Did Mrs. Coningham ever give you 
 a letter to give to the Co-respondent in 
 Miss Shiel's presence? No; never. 
 
 Will you swear that ? Oh ; That is 
 the one she threw on the grass. I told 
 you before that I said it was no use her 
 giving it to me for Dr. O'Haran, when 
 it was for Miss Shiel. That was the 
 one about the machine. 
 
 Do you remember Mrs. Coningham 
 bringing a child to the Church to be 
 baptised ? Yes. 
 
 Which way did she go in? The 
 College Street side. 
 
 Where did she go? Right over, 
 across the passage. Miss Shiel was 
 sitting at the Sacristy door. She went 
 down and met Mrs. Coningham and 
 her mother and the baby there. They 
 
 went to the baptismal font, and I went 
 down, too. I bade Mrs. Coningham 
 "Good morning." It was about five 
 minutes to n o'clock. They were 
 sitting there. Miss Shiel asked me if 
 I would go for the priest to baptise the 
 baby, and I said I would go when the- 
 proper time came - that was n o'clock. 
 When it struck n o'clock I went down 
 and gave word to Kelly that there was 
 a baby to be baptised. 
 
 Well, what next ? I went back to the- 
 Church, and when I had the things laid 
 out Father O'Gorman came up, and lie- 
 baptised the baby. I put up the things, 
 and bade her good-bye, and she went 
 away. 
 
 Was the Co-respondent at home that 
 day ?--! suppose so. He was at M ass 
 with me in the morning. 
 
 And you never saw her with him that 
 day? -No. 
 
 Do you know that name ? (whisper- 
 ing to witness) No. 
 
 Mr. Want : Oh, it's Mrs. B 
 again . 
 
 Have you seen the Co-respondent 
 with a lady in one of the Sacristies ? 
 No. 
 
 Who keeps the keys of the tower ? 
 The Clerk of Works kept them till he 
 was finished. 
 
 Did you ever go out into the front 
 street after a lady and tell her to come 
 back a lady with a child in her arms ? 
 I never done it. 
 
 AN UNINVITED VISITOR. 
 
 Do you remember a woman coming 
 and threatening to break the windows 
 of the Presbytery? Yes. She's a very 
 bad character. She comes there drunk, 
 and makes a row. She comes up and 
 wants to kill us all. (Laughter). 
 
 Then she has not come once or twice? 
 Whenever she is in drink. 
 
 Is she a little woman ? About middle 
 size. 
 
 Do you know her name ? No ; we 
 get shut of her very quick when she 
 comes. (Laughter). 
 
 Did you ever show her out? Show 
 her out! I've often caught her and run 
 her out. (Laughter). 
 
 When did this happen ? Not later 
 than yesterday. 
 
 Oh, I'm speaking of ten or twelve 
 years ago She wasn't always drunk 
 then, the woman I mean I don't know 
 anything about that. 
 
 Mr. Want : She's constantly worry- 
 
 ing you all ? Yes, she comes worrying 
 us. She stands out foreninst the door, 
 and roars. (Laughter). She is sent 
 away, and she comes to me at the 
 Church, and as soon as I can I fling her 
 out, too. (Laughter). Then she goes 
 to some other place, and we telephone 
 for the police, and that's the end of it. 
 
 Is she often locked up ? Yes. 
 
 You never give her whisky and boots ? 
 No. She's as well known at one of 
 the Courts where she goes as one of the 
 bad pennies. 
 
 What did Dr O'Haran say when he 
 took the leter for Miss Shiel ? He said , 
 " This is for Miss Shiel, give it to her." 
 
 What door is it you close at 6 o'clock ? 
 The lower end door, where the sisters 
 come in. 
 
 On procession nights ? No ; not till 
 the ladies and children all have gone 
 away. 
 
 You close it at 6 o'clock on week
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 2 59 
 
 days ? Yes ; it is never locked on Sun- 
 days till all is over. The porch is there, 
 and we leave the door open, and it gives 
 light at that end of the Church. 
 
 With regard to the Cardinals 
 Sacristy. You keep the keys, and U is 
 always locked ? Yes. 
 
 What happens when the Cardinal 
 -wants to go there? Dr. O'Haran 
 comes to me, and tells me a few 
 minutes before ihe Cardinal wants to 
 go i here. 
 
 You were asked if you ever saw Mrs. 
 Coningham and Dr. O'Haran in the 
 Cardinal's Sacristy ? No, I never did. 
 
 Could she get in th2re any other 
 Avay ? No. The ladies sometimes go 
 in there to do some sewing, and she 
 might go there to see Miss Shiel. 
 
 Petitioner : You said there are seven 
 steps after the landing to the Cardinal's 
 Hall?- 1 said tha. there were seven, 
 not that there are. 
 
 The Foreman (to his Honor) : One 
 
 of the Jurymen wants to know, yi 
 Honor, whether the witness knows the 
 meaning of the southern door ? 
 
 His Honor (to witness/ : When you 
 spoke of the southern door, did you 
 mean the one with the porch over it ? 
 Yes ; the one where the Children of 
 St Mary passed in and out of the 
 Cathedral. 
 
 Mr Want : Would your Honor allow 
 Mr. Dixon, theexpert with the micros- 
 cope, to take that confession of June 13 
 into the Associate's room , accompanied 
 by the Associate, in order that he 
 may examine it ? 
 
 His Honor granted the required 
 permission. 
 
 Mr. Want then drew the attention 
 of the Jury to the following passage in 
 one of the letters alleged to have been 
 written by Mrs. Coningham: "Mind 
 you ask me wha} message Langton brought 
 ine when I was waning fur the Doctor, 
 while he was at the funeral." 
 
 THE ANALYST. 
 
 William A. Dixon, analyst, was the 
 next witness. He said that he had 
 been in the profession in Sydne. since 
 1873, and had frequently given evi- 
 dence on such matters. He had 
 just examined a piece of paper ex- 
 hibit "C" in the next room. Have 
 you examined where the words July 3rd 
 are written ? Yes. The texture of the 
 paper is rougher at that spot than it is 
 elsewhere, snowing that there has been 
 an erasure th re. Oh, yes. The "3rd" 
 has been written over some other figure, 
 using the other figure for part of it. 
 But what the o;her figure is I cannot 
 siate, 
 
 There has been another figure there ? 
 Certainly. You can see the residue 
 of it. The old letter that is written 
 under the "3" is written with the 
 same ink and v. ith the same pea that 
 the rest of the letter is. 
 
 And what about the July 3? That 
 appears to have been written with a 
 different pen. 
 
 And what about the ink ? That is 
 blacker. 
 
 And look at the "r" in the "rd." 
 Will you see what has happened there? 
 The " r " appears to have been put 
 in at the same time as the "3," and 
 the " d " doesn't. 
 
 Petitioner: Mr. Dixon. If you write 
 on a piece of paper, and blot it, and 
 
 you then write again on the same piece, 
 and do not blot it, doesn't it look like 
 two different colored inks? Yes, to a 
 certain extent. 
 
 After a lapse of time it would look 
 like that? Yes. But I don't think 
 that's the case with this. Thev seem 
 to have been written, not only with 
 different colored ink, but with a 
 different pen. 
 
 Therefore, can you swear whether 
 that July 3 was done at the time the 
 rest of the letter was done, or pre- 
 viously, or at some subsequent date ? 
 I don't know. I could not swear 
 one way or the other. 
 
 It's possible, is it not, for something 
 to have made a heavy blot there, and 
 th n, no blotting-paper being used 
 allowed to dry the ink would show 
 darker than it is ? I should say that 
 this ink, used with this pen. would not 
 be likely to blot at all, for it would be 
 dry almost as soon as it was on the 
 paper. 
 
 Yes. But that is near the bottom. 
 Might it not be blotted, through being 
 turned over? There are two lines 
 between that and the bottom I think 
 what you say would be very unlikely. 
 
 Suppose there was a defect in the 
 paper, while the letter was being 
 written? That's extremely impro-
 
 a6o 
 
 THE CONIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 bable. This paper has a very uniform 
 surface 
 
 There may have been a blot on the 
 paper previously, which was erased 
 before the lefer was written, may 
 there not? I can't say anything about 
 that. It may occur, but I ihink it 
 extremely unlikely. 
 
 Mr. Want : Would you find, under 
 those circumstances, another word 
 written underneath it? No. 
 
 There are actually the traces ot th * 
 old letter underneath it ? Yes; there 1 * 
 the tail end of a letter -the loop 
 underneath it. 
 
 Has any such thing as Mr. Coning- 
 ham suggests occurred in that letter? 
 In my opinion, no. 
 
 Does it look like a flaw or an erasure ? 
 Certainly not a flaw. 
 
 Could a hair in the pen have made 
 the erasure? (Laughter.) 
 
 JOHN MOONEY. 
 
 John Francis Mooney, bookseller and 
 stationer, carrying on business in Ox- 
 ford Street, said, in answer to Mr. 
 Want, that he had charge of the pro- 
 cession at St. Mary's on the first Sun- 
 day of flie month for a considerable 
 number of years. 
 
 From 1898 up to the .last trial you 
 had charge of the processions I will 
 take it from that ? Yes. 
 
 Have you ever missed a Sunday ? 
 No. 
 
 And I believe you lead the proces- 
 sion ? - Yes, I lead it round the Church . 
 
 Where do you commence? As soon 
 as it starts from the Sanctuary. 
 
 Who marshals and gets it ready be- 
 fore you take charge of it ? Dr. 
 O'Haran. 
 
 Has he evr missed doing so? No, 
 he has not missed doing so on a single 
 occasion. 
 
 You know in this Case it is charged 
 that in July, 1898, and October of that 
 year, Dr. O'Haran was absent for some 
 time in the Cardinal's Hall with the 
 Respondent committing adultery was 
 that possible? No; quite impossible. 
 I will swear that he has never been 
 absent on any night when the Car- 
 dinal has been there, taking part in 
 these proceedings. Had he been ab- 
 sent, I would have had to look else- 
 where for instructions. 
 
 Petitioner : Where's the Co-respon- 
 dent during the procession ? At the 
 back of the canopy, near the Cardinal. 
 
 Where are you? In the front, 
 
 W T hile the repairs were in progress 
 you had to pass the pillars ? Yes. 
 
 And you could not see all the proces- 
 sion when you were passing the pillars? 
 No, not just then, not for the mo- 
 ment, 
 
 If the Hall was not lighted up, would 
 it be very noticeable to you ? - I would 
 not look for it, 
 
 Mr. Want put in Mr. Barr's memo- 
 
 randum, which that gentleman had 
 quoted from in giving his evidence. 
 
 Mr. Want asked permission for the' 
 various experts to examine the docu- 
 ments at 4 o'clock. 
 
 His Honor granted the permission, 
 and said that the parties could be pre- 
 sent. 
 
 Mr. Want then asked for the exhibit* 
 of tbe last Case Mr. Coningham's- 
 letters, etc. so that they might be put 
 in as evidence. 
 
 The learned Counsel explained that 
 he had intended to call as a witness, 
 Mr. O'Farrell, who was at the tele- 
 phone when Dr. O'Haran had the con- 
 versation with Mrs. Coningham, but 
 Mr. O'Farrell was ill. He would call 
 a doctor to prove it. 
 
 Father Barry, a priest at St. Mary's 
 Cathedral, said that the Roman Catho- 
 lic Congress was opened on Monday, 
 September 10, 1900. 
 
 Mr. Want: You heard me asking 
 about a concert. Can you tell us when 
 that was? On September n, 1900. 
 
 Did you attend Mrs. Doyle? I did. 
 
 Can you tell us when she died ? 
 Yes On November 2, 1900. 
 
 Did Dr. O'Haran attend her funeral 
 at Waverley ? Yes. 
 
 When was it ? Next day. 
 
 To Petitioner: Dr. O'Haran did not 
 call at Father Fitzgerald's, in Padding- 
 ton, on the way back. He called 
 nowhere. They got back to the 
 Cathedral at about 6 p.m. 
 
 Mr. Want then put in a letter an 
 exhibit at the last trial -written by 
 Mr. Coningham to Miss Shiel. It was- 
 dated November 10, 1899, and was as 
 follows " My dear Miss Shiel, My 
 dear wife asked me to drop you a note 
 to say a fine bab y boy made its appear- 
 ance at 4.40 this morning.- Thank 
 God, they're both doing splendidly. 
 Come out and see her, as she would be 
 very pleased to see you. Best wishes-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL 
 
 26l 
 
 fiom Mrs. Ooningham and myself. 
 Yours truly, Arthur Coningham." 
 
 Mr. Want also tendered the regis- 
 tration of the birth of the child, 
 Vincent Francis, registered by ' Arthur 
 Coningham, father, 46 Grafton-street, 
 Woollahra," and dated January 6, 
 1900 The child was born at Glebe 
 Road, Glebe. 
 
 His Honor : But thi date of that is 
 long before the date of the alleged 
 confession. 
 
 Mr. Want: But he gave evidence 
 that at the time the child was con- 
 ceived it was impossible for him to 
 have been the father. 
 
 His Honor : Oh, in that way, of 
 course, it is different. 
 
 THE SHORT-HAND WRITER IN THE BOX. 
 
 At this stage a relieving official 
 slu rt-hand writer was sworn in, and 
 the official short-hand writer, Mr. F.A. 
 Charteris, was called as a witness, and 
 examined as to the evidence given by 
 Mrs Coningham at the previous trial. 
 He said that his notes contained the 
 words, " I remember June 29, 1898. 
 I was at St. Mary's Cathedral that 
 night. ... I did not go on the 
 Tuesday night, it was raining. I first 
 saw the Co-respondent in the waiting- 
 room . . . On June 29, 1898, I 
 went to the office at the Presbytery, at 
 about half-past 7 o'clock. I remaimd 
 th re about an hour, I should think. 
 Dr. O'Haran was there with me, on 
 June 29, at 8 o'clock. It is impossible 
 for him to have been twenty miles 
 away at that time. . . . On July 3 
 I went into the corridor leading into 
 the Sacristy . . I think we went 
 between the fern-house and the Cathe- 
 dral. I never told anyone, I went 
 between the fern-house and the Cathe- 
 dral. ... I may have made a 
 mistake, in telling my husband, in 
 saying that I went between the fern- 
 house and the Cathedral. . . ." 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you remember the 
 Respondent being allowed to look at 
 the plan of the Cathedral, and the 
 Petitioner asking for her to be per- 
 mitted to take it out of Court? I 
 remember that she was given per- 
 mission to take it into one of the Court 
 rooms during the luncheon hour. 
 
 Was that after Mr. Barr gave his 
 evidence ? Yes ; it must have been. 
 
 Look at page 234 of the notes, when 
 Mrs. Coningham was recalled on 
 September 12 about something " I 
 was in Court when Miss Sutherland 
 gave her evidence " cross-examina- 
 tion ? Yes. 
 
 " I was in Court when Miss Suther- 
 land gave her evidence. I heard her 
 swear I was at the Cathedral on the 
 first Sunday in November, six weeks 
 
 ago. I was there. I heard O'Brien 
 swear the same thing. I was inside 
 the building. What he said was 
 correct. I was standing near the door 
 when he came. I was at the Cathedral 
 on the processional Sunday first 
 Sunday in Novembar ?" I have it here 
 the same as you have read it. 
 
 Four weeks before the Trial she 
 admitted that she was down at St. 
 Mary's Cathedral on a processional 
 night ? -That is, after Miss Sutherland 
 gave her evidence, and after the boy 
 O'Brien gave his. 
 
 Do you see where she swore this, 
 ' ' We went up to the end of the lane, 
 down two or three steps, I think. It 
 was very dark, and the Doctor opened 
 the door." Yes, that is so 
 
 Only two or three steps ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want here tendered a letter 
 from Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel, 
 which had been put in at the previous 
 trial with the Petitioner's consent. 
 Another letter was tendered by the 
 learned Counsel from Mrs. Coningham 
 to Miss Shiel 
 
 Look at exhibit " D." It is Decem- 
 ber 3, while the Petitioner was examin- 
 ing his wife ? Yes. 
 
 His Honor : What is it ? 
 
 Mr. Want : The envelope. 
 
 Witness : That is the confession. 
 
 That is the envelope in which the 
 confession was, and originally marked 
 " D." 
 
 The learned Counsel next tendered 
 a letter dated July 10, 1900 from Mrs. 
 Coningham to Miss Shiel. This letter 
 Mr. Want said he would read. The 
 confession, he added, was in June. The 
 letter was : " Burrilda, Wetherill 
 Park, lo/y/'oo. Dear Miss Shiel, I 
 will come and see you in a few days, 
 and won't forget the price of' the 
 tickets I sold for you, so you "must 
 forgive me for what I could not help. 
 I hope you are well. I never seem to 
 be well now, and yesterday I saw my
 
 '262 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 mother for the first time for some 
 weeks, and in telling me about what 
 you said about me she admitted she 
 had been to see you about money again. 
 Now, to tell the truth, I was shocked 
 beyond words, and can assure you such 
 a thing will never happen again. It is 
 disgraceful how they seem to think you 
 can help them. I did abuse her for it, 
 and can tell you, as I tell her, if she 
 had a palace I would no more live with 
 her than with my sister. My husband 
 will have to keep me always, and, what 
 is more, work for it, so please don't 
 think I had even a knowledge of it, or 
 she would never have bothered you. 
 It upset me fearfully. Vincent is such 
 a good child, and a big one, too, only 
 not well to-day. The weather is against 
 him so, If you feel kind enough to 
 answer this, tell me when I will find 
 you at No. 19, and I will do myself the 
 pleasure of calling. My kind regards 
 to Miss Me. With love, I remain, 
 yours faithfully, A. Coningham." 
 
 Mr. Want also tendered the follow- 
 ing letter : " Wetherill Park, 2i/i/'oo. 
 Dear Miss Shiel, Forgive me not 
 writing sooner to thank you for what 
 you gave mother, and I say I could not 
 possibly expect you to do more for me, 
 at least not until I can see my way to 
 pay you back again. I left Sydney 
 without speaking to Conny, and alto- 
 gether I am most miserable. I feel 
 inclined to give up hoping for a change. 
 All is so black . How are you keeping ? 
 Very busy this week, of course. I 
 really hope you have a good time. How 
 I would like to be in Sydne.y, but now 
 I really don't know what to do. Conny 
 told Mrs. Miller he would pay her 
 monthly. Well, the month is up, and 
 now he sends her a post-dated cheque 
 for three weeks time. Of course there 
 is a bother, and goodness knows where 
 he intends to be when that falls due. 
 I dare not tell the woman I believe he 
 cannot pay her, as I would only for the 
 children, as she would make me leave 
 at once. I have no place to go, so I 
 must hold my tongue, and possibly see 
 her cheated-. I hate the whole thing, 
 
 and wonder how it will end. When 
 you have time write to me never 
 mind the stamp and the Dr. was 
 right, he did not get the billet, but 
 then I tell you everything. Are you 
 never going to come up ? Vincent is 
 so well again, and Mabel not so well, 
 With love, I remain, yours sincerely, 
 A. Coningham." 
 
 The Petitioner cross-examined the 
 short-hand-writer. Can you find a 
 passage there where the Respondent 
 said : "If my memory doesn't fail me, 
 it was Wednesday ?" I would have to 
 look right through the notes. 
 
 Mr. Want : She distinctly swore it 
 was June 29 the last Wednesday in 
 the month. We had to bring a witness 
 from Port Macquarie about it. 
 
 John Galvin said he had been one of 
 the Church-wardens at St. Mary's for 
 four or five years, and was always 
 present at the Procession on the first 
 Sunday in the month. He was per- 
 forming his duties in the Church. Dr. 
 O'Haran acted as Master of Cere- 
 monies for the procession, and attended 
 on the Cardinal, and also assisted at 
 Vespers. He always had a full view 
 of the Sanctuary. 
 
 During 1898 to 1900 he had never 
 known Dr. O'Haran to be absent from 
 those processions on the first Sunday 
 in the month. 
 
 His Honor : We ought certainly to 
 close the evidence on Monday. The 
 addresses of Counsel will then take up 
 the rest of the day, and then on the 
 next day I will sum up. I shall make 
 my summing up as short as I can I 
 will not close it at the end of the day if 
 I can help it, so that you will have a 
 clear day to consider your verdict. 
 
 The Foreman : Then we shall be 
 locked up on Tuesday or Wednesday 
 night. 
 
 Mr. Want : Locked up ! Why, what 
 are you going to do ? 
 
 The Foreman : I suppose the Jury 
 will retire, that's what i mean. 
 
 The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. 
 on Monday. 
 
 On Monday, March the 25th, and the tenth day of the Second 
 Trial, the Court was again crowded, and the keenest interest was 
 manifested in the proceedings. 
 
 F. A. Charteris, the official short- Will you look at your notes, and see 
 
 hand writer, was recalled by Mr. whether Langton, at the previous trial, 
 Want. and before Mr. Coningham asked for
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 263 
 
 the plan for Mrs. Coningham, whether 
 lie gave evidence, and if so, will you 
 tell me whether he did not give evi- 
 dence that she had been down there on 
 the funeral night? Langton gave evi- 
 dence on December 5. The plan was 
 produced on December n. On De- 
 cember 5, Langton gave evidence. He 
 said, " Later on she came in one day 
 .to me at the back of the high altar. It 
 was a good bit after the first occasion. 
 She said, " 'I came for to see Dr. 
 O'Haran, and I see he is going to 
 the funeral.' " Langton gave that 
 evidence before the plan was put in. 
 On December n, the plan was given 
 to the Respondent in Court. I have a 
 note of it now, I find, in my book. It 
 was produced the night previously by 
 
 Mr. Barr, and the next day it was given 
 to the Respondent in Court. I have a 
 note of what the Judge said to the Jury. 
 He said: "You quite understand, of 
 course, gentlemen, the importance of 
 this evidence. Mrs. Coningham has 
 fixed definitely Wednesday, June 29, 
 1898, on which night she said a certain 
 occurrence took place at the Presby- 
 tery. No criminal act I mean in the 
 sense of adultery took place that 
 night. The first criminal act was on 
 the following Sunday, July 3." The 
 witness continued reading the note, 
 and was asked by the learned Counsel 
 if there were anything more concern- 
 ing June 29. He was answered in the 
 negative. 
 
 ANOTHER HAND-WRITING EXPERT. 
 
 William Raleigh Sayers said he was 
 .assistant accountant in the Commercial 
 Bank of Sydney, Limited, and had been 
 there over thirty-three years. He had 
 repeatedly studied signatui .sand hand- 
 writing. In the event of am difficulty 
 at the Dank they were brought to him. 
 He was asked by Mr. Slattery on Fri- 
 day afternoon to look at the letters in 
 .this Case. 
 
 A number of documents in the Case 
 were then handed to witness. 
 
 Mr. Want : These are all from Mrs. 
 Coningham to Miss Shiel. Now, 
 1iere are three letters disputed by her. 
 Have you compared the writing on 
 those of Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel 
 .and those I have just handed to you, 
 which we say are here. Will you tell 
 the Jury if in your opinion they are 
 alike ? The exhibit " n," the one 
 beginning "I want money," is in the 
 same hand-writing as exhibit "9, "the 
 letter to Miss Shiel, of 24th April, 
 1900. 
 
 Now. tell the Jury why you come to 
 that conclusion, so that they can see 
 for themselves ? It is the general char- 
 acter of the writing, and the peculiar 
 formation of the letter " t" and the 
 cross on it. 
 
 Mr. Want: I'll point it out on the 
 photographs. (To Mr. Slattery) : Give 
 me more photographs. 
 
 Petitioner : Will you give me one so 
 that I can follow it too ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Certainly. 
 
 His Honor : Does the same peculiar- 
 ity about the " t" occur in only one or 
 two places ? 
 
 Witness: No, your Honor ; it occurs 
 generally through them. It is char- 
 acteristic right through. 
 
 Mr. Want : Will your Honor allow 
 me, while I think of it, to have the 
 document which we call the " key," in 
 what we say is Mrs. Coningham's writ- 
 ing, photographed ? 
 
 Petitioner : What do you mean by 
 the " key ?" 
 
 Mr. Want: It is her answer to your 
 statement. 
 
 Petitioner : Her supposed answer. 
 
 Mr, Want : Yes, we call it the " key." 
 It was produced by Mr. Moss, 
 
 His Honor : It is not in evidence ? 
 
 Mr. Want : No. 
 
 His Honor: Have you any objection, 
 Mr. Coningham ? 
 
 Petitioner: No, your Honor. That 
 is one I say is a forgery. 
 
 His Honor: It is marked " A 9" for 
 identification. 
 
 Mr, Want (to witness) : Anything else 
 besides what you've said ? Yes, where 
 there is the crossing of the " t" a 
 thick crossing at the end, a thick line 
 at the end of the crossing. That oc- 
 curs in both letters. There is also a 
 rather remarkable peculiarity about the 
 letter " i," a peculiar loop. It occurs 
 generally through the letters. The 
 capital " I" occurs through them all. 
 
 The witness said that he had com- 
 pared a letter written by Mrs. Coning- 
 ham to Mr. Coningham, from Vallis 
 Court, in which she stated that she was 
 "getting thin," with that letter^ re- 
 pudiated by Mrs. Coningham, wh'ch 
 contained the words , ' subpoena the
 
 264 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 cabby ... he drove me a dozen 
 times on Sundays. . . . etc." He 
 drew the attention of the Jury to the 
 small "t" wherever it occurred, in 
 which there were points of similarity, 
 and also to the letter " c," in the word 
 "croup," in one letter, and in the 
 word "cabby" in the other, which 
 were also similar. He had also com- 
 pared the letter containing the words 
 " I want money " with the letter in 
 which there occurred the phrase " that 
 my sister would only give me away." 
 Both these letters contained the word 
 " give," and he directed the Jury's 
 attention to those two words. 
 
 Mr. Want : Is there anything else ? 
 Yes. In the same letters there occur 
 the words " spare" in one, and " spoke " 
 in the other. There is a peculiarity 
 about the " sp," which is noticeable in 
 both. Then the peculiar character ot 
 the letter " i," which runs through 
 all the letters is noticeable in these 
 two, "Exhibits 13 and 31." The 
 general character of the writing I have 
 already drawn attention to. It is 
 noticeable throughout these two letters 
 containing the word "give," which I 
 just referred to. 
 
 Now here is the " confession," dated 
 June 13, known here as " Exhibit C ?" 
 I see a similarity between the word 
 " you " wherever it occurs in the con- 
 fession, and the same word where it 
 occurs in "Exhibit II" (the letter 
 containing the expression " that my 
 sister would only give me away "). 
 
 The witness pointed out the words 
 "truth" and "try" in these letters, 
 stating that the " t" in each case had a 
 peculiar stroke, thickened at the end. 
 
 Witness compared what Mrs Con- 
 ingham had written in Court with the 
 letter containing the words " If you 
 deny the Arnold letter." In No. i, if 
 they compared the words "I will" on 
 the third line from the bottom with t he 
 words "I will" on the fifth line from 
 the bottom of No. 12 on page one they 
 would find a peculiarity. Exhibit No, 
 34, which was a letter from Mrs. Coh- 
 ingham to Miss Shiel, he compared 
 with letter No. 12. In exhibit 34, if 
 they looked in the tenth and sixteenth 
 lines, and compared the words " the" 
 and " that" with those from the fourth 
 line from the bottom of No. 12 they 
 would also see the peculiarity of the 
 ' th." No. 12, compared with No. 13, 
 shows the same peculiarity with the 
 
 capital " I." In No. 33 there is the 
 same peculiarity in the capital " I," 
 and there is a peculiar twist in the 
 small "p." With regard to Nos, 12 
 and 13,1 see the word telephone occurs 
 there. If you look at No. 12, ninth 
 line, and No. 13, on the fourteenth 
 line 
 
 His Honor: Both these documents 
 are disputed. 
 
 Petitioner : Yes, your Honor, they 
 are denied. 
 
 Witness: In these two letters the 
 " t" with the back loop goes right 
 through the letters. 
 
 Mr. Want: Is the loop " t" in the 
 documents which he says are denied 
 the same in the letters admitted there ? 
 Yes ; the same peculiarity. Taking 
 exhibit 12, it has a marked peculiarity 
 about it. It appears to me to be a dis- 
 guised hand. I draw attention to the 
 first couple of lines commencing in a 
 peculiar way, and then the hand- 
 writing gets into a more easy and 
 natural style. 
 
 Now, I want you to take this letter, 
 written in Court, in which the words 
 " apologisng," "adultry," and " pri- 
 scription" occur. I want you to com- 
 pare that with exhibit 12. You will 
 find similar words there ? Yes, I have 
 compared these words. The words- 
 " priscription" I don't think much of 
 with regard to their being greatly alike. 
 
 Do you see the spelling of these three 
 words ? I am looking at the word ' 'pri- 
 scription." I see that it has a pecu- 
 liarity in the " e." It is an "i." 
 
 Look at the end of the word " apolo- 
 gisng ?" Yes, apologising. It is spelt 
 " sng." There is a strong similarity 
 between the " ad." In one it is written 
 " adustry," and in the other " adultry.'' 
 
 Mr. Want : A change in hand-writ- 
 ing ? It began apparently in one hand,, 
 and finished in another. 
 
 Do you notice that in any other let- 
 ter ? No. The change is ver)^ marked, 
 indeed, in this. 
 
 I want you to look at the figures "9" 
 
 and " 7" in exhibit 12, in some of the 
 
 letters to Miss Shiel. Do you notice 
 
 anything at the bottom of the "9" in 
 
 "No. 12 ? Yes, there is a turn-up there. 
 
 Do you see the same thing in one 
 of the' letters to Miss Shiel? Well, 
 I've not been able to discover anything 
 in it. 
 
 Mr. Want: Here's one of October. 
 Look at the "9" there: and here is-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 265. 
 
 another (No 33), look at the "7?" 
 Compare that with the "9" in No. 12? 
 I don't think much of it, There is a 
 little turn up ; but I don't think any- 
 thing of it. It is so microscopic ; I 
 don't see any marked similarity. 
 
 Take those three. Do you. in your 
 opinion, think they are written by the 
 same person? I consider No. nis; 
 that the writing in No. 13 is, consider- 
 ing it is written in pencil. I consider 
 the writing in No. 12 is, considering 
 it's a disguised hand, and that the 
 others are similar. 
 
 Now, I want you to take these letters : 
 Nos. 14, 28, and 15. All these are 
 admitted to be in Coningham's writing. 
 One is a letter to Miss Shiel, another 
 is a post-card to W Miller, and the 
 other is a post-card addressed to F. 
 Miller. Then take the telegram (No. 
 18), addressed " Miller, Burrilda, 
 Wetherill Park, via Smithfield," and 
 also Nos. 16 and 17. 
 
 The witness, having examined the 
 addresses on the telegram and the post- 
 card, said that the hand-writing was 
 identical 
 
 Counsel then drew the witness's 
 attention to the letter-card addressed 
 " Mrs V. Arnold, "in which the writer 
 promised to "bring up more oysters 
 and stout," and signed it "Mabel"; 
 the letter to " W. Miller," in which the 
 word "Mabel" was used; and the 
 letter addressed to " F. Miller." 
 
 Witness: The signature "Mabel" 
 is just like the "Mabel" in the letter 
 to Miller. The same word in the other 
 letter to Miller, written in pencil, is 
 similar in character, but thicker. 
 
 In reply to further questions by Mr. 
 Want, the witness said that in the 
 letter-card addressed, " W Miller," 
 there was a strong similarity in the 
 " W " to the same letter in the word 
 Wetherill Park, on the address of the 
 letter-card to " Mrs Arnold." The 
 
 word Sunday also occurred in two 
 places, spelt " Sundoy." Witness then 
 showed that the words "I can" 
 occurred in the post-card to Mr. Miller, 
 and in the post-card to Mrs. Arnold. 
 They were similar. In each case the 
 " c " in " can " was written above the 
 level of the other letters. Comparing 
 the registration receipt with the post- 
 card addressed "W. Miller," he also- 
 found that the " W " in the latter was 
 like the "W" in "Wetherill Park" 
 on the former. The word "Burilda" 
 occurring in both, was also written 
 similarly. 
 
 In comparing the various letters the 
 task of the Jury was facilitated by a 
 number of enlarged photographs of the 
 several documents referred to. which 
 were submitted to them by Mr. Want. 
 
 After making further comparisons, 
 the witness said that the prefix " Mr." 
 was similar in the post-card to Miller, 
 commencing ' ' Dear Fred .... 
 meet me at the station," and the butt 
 of the receipt for the registered letter. 
 The address on the registered letter, . 
 and the addresses on the two post- 
 cards to Miller were, he should say, in 
 the same hand-writing. There was a 
 marked resemblance in the inverted 
 commas over the word "Burilda." 
 Then there were certain similarities in 
 the character of letters in exhibit " 14" 
 the post-card which petitioner ad- 
 mitted having written to Miller, and 
 exhibit 17 - the registered letter signed 
 " Mabel." 
 
 His Honor asked the witness to com- 
 pare the letters "A. C.," which had 
 been written and then scratched out, 
 at the bottom of the telegram signed 
 " Exton," and one of the documents 
 which the petitioner admitted having 
 written. 
 
 Tfce witness said that the " A '' was 
 similar, but he could only say that the 
 " C " was somewhat similar. 
 
 COXIN'GHAM CROSS-EXAMIXES THE EXPERT. 
 
 The Petitioner then cross-examined the witness, and began by 
 asking if he were the recognised expert for the bank. The witness 
 said that there was no such person as a recognised expert. He had 
 himself often given evidence touching hand-writing, Coningham 
 then plunged laboriously into the complex question of forgeries 
 and the methods of forgers. Mr. Savers knew nothing about the 
 gentle art of forging. He had never entered into the mind of one of 
 these felonious experts in autography, and therefore could give no
 
 266 THE COXIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 information on the subject. He supposed, however, that the first 
 .aim of a forger was to get money. Coningham cited the case of orders 
 for a certain publication having been forged in the different 
 Australian Colonies ; but the witness did not remember the circum- 
 . stance. If he wrote a letter to Coningham and the latter reproduced 
 it the next morning he certainly would be able to say which was the 
 forgery. The Petitioner then said, " I undertake to show you how 
 close I can go to your hand-writing, though I am not an expert, 
 only a fool" (Laughter). Did the expert think that the hand-writing 
 on the envelope (which he said had been addressed in a disguised 
 hand) might have been done by an intoxicated man ? No ! the 
 expert inferred that the man who addressed the envelope was a 
 teetotaller. Moreover, the disguised hand-writing in question was 
 not clever enough for a forgery. As to whether the letters were or 
 were not forgeries, the witness thought nothing w r as impossible, but 
 in this case it was highly improbable. 
 
 At this stage Coningham brought under the notice of the 
 expert several of the letters and papers put in, and questioned him 
 as to whether or not they were written by one and the same person. 
 The witness said that looking at them in an off-hand manner one 
 .might consider they were not written by the same person, but there 
 was a striking similarity betw r een them. The Petitioner said, " Mr. 
 Sayers, there is one exhibit with three ' g's ' on. It is November 12. 
 Then you looked at another one one of Miss ShiePs (Coningham 
 meant one of his wife's letters to the lady mentioned) with ' 9' on. 
 You did not notice in the figure ' 9 ' a slight turn up. Are they very 
 .distinct ?" The expert replied that he saw r them, but did not attach 
 much importance to the " 9's." The addresses on Nos. 14 and 18 
 were, however, said the witness, by the same hand ; but he would 
 like to see them again. The expert examined the documents 
 referred to, and said that they were addressed by the same hand 
 in his opinion the person who wrote the telegram wrote also the 
 .address on the post-c?.rd to " F. Miller." He would, to the best of 
 his belief, swear that exhibits Nos. 15 and 1 6 were written by the 
 :same person as No. 18 so far as regarded the addresses on the two 
 post-cards and the telegram. The expert was further of opinion 
 .that the writing in the body of the telegram was by the same hand, 
 .and that the writing on the inside of the post-cards corresponded to 
 the writing on tha two registration slips put in. The telegram had 
 been written with a much thicker pen than the other documents. 
 He said points of similarity, though not of great similarity. The 
 formation of the letters was not dissimilar; but the writing was 
 larger and thicker. The capital " F " in " Friday," for instance, 
 had just the same formation as the capital " F " in the body of the 
 telegram. It was in just the same style ; he referred to the post-card 
 No. 1 6. Yes, he considered that the six documents before him 
 (three post-cards, the telegram, and two registration slips) were all 
 written by the same person. To the best of witness's knowledge 
 .and belief the two words " Mabel " one in Xo. 16, the signature,
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 267 
 
 and the other in the body of the No. 14 were both by the same 
 hand. The two " Mabels " were sufficiently alike to pass for 
 twins, said the expert, in effect. Mr. Want drew attention to a third 
 ' Mabel " thus establishing triplets in relationship. Oh ! yes, said 
 Mr. Sayers, they were all of the same family all alike ! There was 
 also a similarity between the " Ws " one in the telegram, and one 
 in the post-card (No. 16) vide " Wetherill Park." Certainly, 
 admitted the expert, it was quite possible for a clever forger to make 
 such " W's " alike ; but it was not possible for him (witness) to be 
 deceived when he considered the whole address. Anything was 
 possible with regard to penmanship, though the successful accom- 
 plishment of certain things was highly improbable. Anyone 
 attempting forgery would seize upon any peculiarities that offered 
 themselves. The witness had heard of forgeries being perpetrated 
 by means of a window-pane with a strong light behind it, but con- 
 sidered it a clumsy method of doing the thing. With regard to- 
 isolated words the operator might deceive ; but a complete letter,, 
 gone over with a lead-pencil and then copied from original words, 
 shows its own faults. A signature might deceive him (witness), but 
 not a letter. If there were no character in the writing, the copy 
 would appear clumsy. In answer to the Petitioner^ the expert 
 declined to say what he thought a forger thought he had no idea of 
 the operations of a forger's mind his aim would, no doubt, be to copy 
 the document. He (witness) certainly did not think it possible for 
 a person to forge the document (No. 12), "You deny the Arnold 
 letter, etc.," in the event of there being no original from which to- 
 copy. For instance, it was not possible to copy the two letters 
 signed " Mabel '' without having the original before you. Obviously, 
 no one could copy an original, where the original did not exist. His 
 Honor interjected a remark to the effect that the witness was 
 speaking of a case in which a man had to originate a letter as to- 
 whether he then could forge it. Mr. Want put the substance of his 
 Honor's remark in a question to the expert, who replied that nothing 
 was impossible in this connection ; but he did not think that it could 
 be done. The expert further said that no person could, in his 
 opinion, sit down and write a letter, and retain the whole of the 
 characteristics of the hand-writing which it was intended to imitate. 
 Counsel then stated that the letters had been locked up. They had. 
 never be,en out of Court. He forgot about the erasure in the 
 confession. Would the expert take the document supposed to have 
 been signed by Mrs. Coningham on the i3th June. He wanted him 
 to look at the " 3rd July." Had the expert examined that ? Mr. 
 Sayers replied that he had. He would say that there had been an 
 erasure in that place. The expert here held the document referred 
 to up to the light. Yes, there had been an erasure there, because 
 the paper was not of a uniform character. At that spot the document 
 was thinner. It showed the white face an erasure always left. Here 
 Mr. Want explained to a dubious-minded juryman that the date, 
 li ^rd July," had not been altered since the last trial. It was just as
 
 2268 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 it was at that time ; but Mrs. Coningham had sworn that nothing in 
 jit had been erased. The Jury might remember Counsel asking the 
 Respondent if she did not charge that adultery was committed on 
 the 2nd October. Counsel then asked Mrs. Coningham if there had 
 not been something before that, and if there had not been an erasure 
 there. His Honor supposed that Mr. Want's contention was that 
 the alleged original seduction was on the and October, and that Mrs. 
 'Coningham had altered it from the 2nd October to the 3rd July. 
 The Senior Counsel for Dr. O'Haran replied certainly, and it was 
 brought up at the former hearing of the Case. His Honor: " Some 
 
 evidence is given as to the ' 2nd ' being altered to the ' 3rd.' " Mr. 
 \Yant : " I say you can see the ' nd ' under it there. There is the 
 
 d nvn-stroke ol the ' 3 ' in the old letter. It is the balance of a ' 2.' 
 1 said last time to the Jury that ' / would stand or fall by the 
 
 .erasure in that letter /'" His Honor remarked that there was during 
 the present trial no doubt about Mrs. Coningham having been asked 
 .about this matter of the erasure. She said " there was a hair in the 
 pen." Mr. \Yant read a part of the evidence, to show that he had 
 drawn attention to it: "The paper was not sent to Mr. Abigail's 
 office with the words 'October 2nd ' on it." Then, turning to the 
 witness, Counsel said that he wanted him to say whether or not 
 there had been an erasure there. Could he see a trace of anything 
 that had been there before ? After some considerable examination 
 the expert said that he could see in the middle of the '' 3 " some- 
 thing that looked like the top of a " 2." It did not look' like a 
 natural " 3." That was all he could make out of it. After a further 
 examination, with a microscope, the witness said that the place had 
 been written over. There had been some other figures there some 
 other writing. There had been some alteration before the " d," the 
 "nd," or whatever one cared to call it. There had been two 
 writings. The ink was different. That was before the " d " what- 
 ever it was, an " r," or anything else it had been written twice. 
 The difference between the colours of the inks used could be dis- 
 tinctly seen. His Honor desired to know if the texture of the paper 
 was the same as the rest of the document. Was the surface smoother 
 or rougher in the place where the word " July " had been written. 
 Perhaps he ought rather to ask if the texture of the paper were dis- 
 tinctly rougher ? Mr. Want inquired the reason of this difference in 
 texture ; and the witness replied that it was owing to an erasure. 
 Said his Honor: "As if someone had scratched it with a knife?' 
 \Vitness had no doubt, in his own mind, about it. Mr. Want : 
 " Could that have been done by a hair getting into the pen ?" " Not 
 the slightest chance," replied, the expert. Mr. Want : " Could the 
 mark before the ' d ' have been done by a hair getting into the pen ? 
 Mr. Sayers said it was a special formation made by the pen itself. 
 In answer to the Petitioner as to whether two different inks could 
 "be used in the same process, the witness replied that there was 
 something bluish under " 3rd," as if a previous ink had been 
 and had been blotted with it. Then there was the
 
 THE SiiCOND TIJIAL. 269 
 
 erasure where " July " had been written. And again the stroke 
 making the " 2nd " into the " 3rd." The blot was not under 
 the black ink it was at the side of it. The black ink 
 had been written over it. Writing over an erasure always 
 made the ink come out distinctly black. The ink sank into the 
 paper wherever an erasure occurred. It produced the same effect as 
 blotting-paper. If the paper had a fine surface the ink would not 
 appear disturbed. Writing on a piece of blotting-paper appears 
 similar to the word in the document. A drop of water falling on the 
 surface, and then dried with blotting-paper, would not, being after- 
 wards written over, show this effect. Such would not present the 
 same appearance as an erasure written over. \Vater spilt on paper, 
 and then dried, did not injure the surface he (witness) had tried it. 
 In answer to the Petitioner, the expert said that were he a forger he 
 could copy a letter ; but it would be a clumsy affair. He had never 
 saen a letter which had been forged from beginning to end. He had, 
 however, seen signatures which were forgeries. 
 
 Mr. Want then called upon the Petitioner to produce letters re- 
 ceived by him at the Sydney General Post Office in the name of 
 V. Arnold." Coningham said that he had none, and had never re- 
 ceived any in that name. Mr. Want next asked the Petitioner to 
 produce letters received by him under the name of " Arthur Wilson." 
 The Petitioner again denied having any such letters. A few days 
 after he came back from Queensland he received a note from some- 
 one to inquire for a letter addressed to that name ; but he did not 
 receive one. Mr. Want hoped that his Honor would make a note 
 that the Petitioner affirmed that he had never received any letters 
 under the names specified. 
 
 ANOTHER HAND-WRITING EXPERT. 
 
 At this stage the Foreman of the Jury asked permission of his 
 Honor to retire. The twelve good men and true wished to decide 
 as to whether they required any more evidence with regard to the 
 letters in the Case. The parties to the suit had no objection, and 
 the Jury retired. 
 
 The Petitioner then intimated to the Judge that he had, on the 
 morrow, a police court robbery case on the carpet (Coningham v. 
 Exton ). He would like to know if he should have to get it remanded 
 again it had once been remanded already. His Honor declined to 
 adjourn the Court to enable anyone to attend a police matter. Then 
 the Jury came back, and the Foreman said that he and his confreres 
 did not want to hear any more experts on hand-writing. The Judge 
 asked if that meant that they had made up their minds on the point. 
 Oh ! yes, they had each made up his individual mind (this with 
 marked emphasis) ; but their collective mind was still in a hetero- 
 geneous condition. Very well, his Honor remarked, the Counsel 
 must go along with the evidence. It could not be stopped at this 
 unsatisfactory stage. The Jury must come to an agreement about
 
 2JO THE COXINGHAM CASE. 
 
 the documents having been written by Mr. and Airs. Coningham, 
 He could hardly conceive of a more important point in the Case, be- 
 cause the Respondent had denied that she wrote the letters. That 
 was a matter within her own knowledge. If the Jury concluded that 
 she had written them, then there must have been false swearing, and 
 they would have to ask themselves as to the credibility of her other 
 evidence. His Honor said that he could not stop the evidence. The 
 Jury acquiesced under compulsion. Quite a while was taken up 
 with explanations by the Judge and Counsel, and demurrings on the 
 part of the Foreman, before the next witness could resume his 
 evidence. 
 
 Hugh Conley, sworn and examined by Mr. Want, stated that he 
 was employed in the Union Bank, Sydney, and had been connected 
 with that institution for twenty years. During that period he had 
 made a study of hand-writing. At the request of Mr. Slattery, he 
 had examined a lot of letters in the Associate's Room. The three 
 letter-cards, as well as the registered letter and the telegram, were 
 then handed to the witness, and the photographic enlargements of 
 them were placed in the hands of the Jury so as to enable them to 
 follow his evidence. 
 
 In answer to Mr. Want, the expert said that he had compared 
 the hand-writing in the addresses on the letter-cards, the telegram, 
 and the envelope of the registered letters. In his opinion they had 
 all been written by one person. The witness instanced the general 
 formation and character of each letter. The capital " M's," the 
 letters " p," " k," " h," were characteristically alike. In the whole 
 three of the exhibits the capital " W's" were also alike. Taking the 
 contents of the three letter-cards the expert said that to the best of 
 his belief they were written by the same person. The letter " B" in 
 " Burwah" was the same as the letter " B" in " Burilda." The letter 
 "S" in "Sunday," in exhibit 16, was the same as the letter " S " in 
 " Sunday" in the letter to Mr. Miller. The letter " F " in " Fairfield," 
 in exhibit 14, was the same as the " F" in " Friday," in exhibit 16. 
 The word " Mabel," in exhibits 14 and 16, were alike. The letter 
 " g" in "go," when compared with the "g" in "again," was similar, 
 although one was written back-hand fashion. The general character 
 of the hand- writing was also similar. 
 
 The witness had no doubt that the letter-cards had been written 
 by the same person. Comparing the address on the letter-card to 
 Miller, with the telegram, the expert said that the " B," " W," " P," 
 and " via Smithfield," were the same. As far as witness could judge, 
 they had been written by the same person. The alleged confession 
 ot the i3th June was next handed to Mr. Conley. Mr. Want en- 
 quired if anything had been done to the document. The witness 
 said that there had been an erasure. There had also been an altera- 
 tion, but what alteration he did not know. There was no doubt in 
 his (witness's) mind that what had been written there originally was 
 afterwards rubbed out with a knife, and something else written over
 
 oc 3 
 
 CC 7. 
 
 D H 
 
 DO x 
 
 : S 
 
 < 
 
 s 
 o 
 z
 
 THE SKCOXO TRIAL. 27! 
 
 the erasure. He (the expert) had gone through the admitted letters 
 from Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel, and compared them with other 
 hand-writing said to have been the Respondent's. They all appeared 
 to him as the work of one and the same person. Mr. Want drew 
 the expert's attention to the words in the letter-card and the sentence, 
 " If you deny the Arnold letter and post-card, so will I." Was that 
 in the same hand-writing as the letters from Mrs. Coningham to 
 Miss Shiel ? M . Conley replied that there were some letters bearing 
 the same formation, but one letter had been written so as to be com- 
 pared with nothing. It was in a disguised hand. 
 
 THE EXFTiRT IS CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER. 
 
 In answer to the Petitioner, in cross-examination, Mr. Conley, 
 the expert in hand- writing, considered that exhibit 13 had been 
 written in a disguised hand. Yes, it was possible for it to be a 
 forgery. The hand-writing in these two letters (exhibit 13 and 
 one written to Miss Shiel) was so dissimilar that no expert could 
 copy it even in three months. He could not, therefore, swear that 
 these two letters had been written by the same person. The word 
 "Mabel" in exhibits 17 and 20 corresponded. The letter-cards 
 also certainly agreed. To the best of his belief the same writer 
 had penned the four " Mabels." Referring to the disputed con- 
 fession the witness said that there was a trace of a letter under- 
 neath the "y " in "July 3rd." There was something underneath 
 the " 3," but what it was the witness could not say. 
 
 At this stage the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. the following 
 day. 
 
 Tuesday, the 26th March, was the eleventh day of the second 
 hearing of the Case. Proceedings were opened by Petitioner, who 
 continued his cross-examination of the expert in hand-writing, Mr. 
 Hugh Conley. 
 
 The witness, at the Petitioner's request, examined documents 
 numbered 12 and 13. Coningham asked the expert to look at the 
 two words " telephone." Mr. Conley said that they were very 
 similar. Were they the same ? Yes, with the exception of the 
 loop in the letter " t." Asked to look at the letter " 1," the expert 
 said that it appeared to him that the ink did not run when the " 1 " 
 in exhibit 12 was being written. Was there a great similarity in 
 the two documents ? Yes, they might have been written by the 
 same person ! In connection with banking business forgery ap- 
 plied only to cheques. 
 
 At this stage the Petitioner asked the witness a number of 
 irrelevant questions referring to supposititious acts of forgery, the 
 Dreyfus scandal, and other recondite and abstruse matters. His 
 Honor brought the erudite cricketer back to the wickets : The 
 witness could not speak in Court from hearsay. He could only 
 speak of that which was within his knowledge. He could not 
 speak of what he read in the newspapers. Mr. Want here inter-
 
 272 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 jected that the Dreyfus Case was one involving only a question of 
 a signature to a document. The Judge disclaimed any knowledge 
 of the Dreyfus Case. 
 
 In answer to the Petitioner the expert said that it might be 
 possible for an expert forger to manufacture the documents if he 
 had sufficient time. Coningham digressed once more into the 
 forbidden " Realm of Hearsay." This time he wandered into the 
 Parnell Case. The Petitioner : " If he (supposititious forger) had 
 the documents for three months if he had hundreds of words of 
 mine in his possession at least fifty sheets of brief do you think 
 he could do it?" Mr. Want: "Who has had fifty sheets of 
 brief?" The Petitioner: "Abigail and others. Would it be 
 possible to forge it?" Mr. Want: " If a man did not have an 
 original, do you think it would be possible for him to forge a letter 
 right through ?" Witness: "If he did not have the original, it 
 would be highly improbable !" 
 
 His Honor said that the word "forgery" was being used 
 freely in Court. It was a very startling expression - more the busi- 
 ness of a Criminal Court. But at the present time the Jury had not 
 to determine the question of forgery that was to say, the question 
 of forgery did not come up directly. The only question they had to 
 determine was whether the disputed letters had been written by 
 Mrs. Coningham, or not. Whether they had been forged was not 
 the question. It was not directly the case ! Mr. Want then 
 explained that he had gone into the matter to show that the 
 Petitioner was asking the very questions he had been told to ask. 
 The Judge said that Coningham, in his cross-examination, was 
 endeavouring to show that though the writing was very similar to 
 that of the Respondent, it was not her writing. Mr. Want said 
 that the value of it lay in the fact that the Petitioner was asking the 
 very questions he was, in the letters, told to ask. His Honor said 
 that this was a very different matter. Whether the letters showed 
 conspiracy or not, Counsel must first establish that the letters had 
 been written by Mrs. Coningham. Mr. Want said that whether 
 they were or were not written by the Respondent, they were 
 communications made in such a way that the Petitioner was 
 making use of them. The Judge remarked that this was another 
 matter. 
 
 ANOTHER WITNESS FROM THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. 
 
 The next witness called was Roland Kean, a clerk at the 
 General Post Office. He stated that he delivered letters to persons 
 who called for them. In answer to Mr. Want, he said he knew 
 Coningham, the Petitioner, who had called for letters for a con- 
 siderable time These communications were addressed to 
 "V. Arnold " and "Wilson " "A. Wilson." He (the Petitioner) 
 had received letters addressed " V. Arnold " as recently as the 
 latter end of January. Witness did not speak of any time since 
 then. There were other delivery clerks who relieved. Witness
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 273 
 
 was not positive about the time Coningham received letters 
 addressed to "Wilson." As far as he could recollect, up to 
 December last. 
 
 CONINGHAM CROSS-EXAMINES. 
 
 The Petitioner then tried to breakdown this witness's evidence, 
 tout his labour met with poor results. Among' other things Con- 
 ingham elicited the information that he had himself received three 
 letters addressed to "V. Arnold." (The Petitioner ejaculated in 
 exclamatory astonishment admirably simulated). In answer to a 
 .question, the witness said that Mr. Dalgarno was over him, and 
 the Federal Postmaster-General, the Hon. Mr. Drake, was over 
 Mr. Dalgarno. About five hundred persons per diem called for 
 letters at the General Post Office about four thousand a week. 
 Yes, Coningham called for the " Arnold" letters about the second 
 week in January. The Petitioner : " There are 500 a day, 3,000 a 
 week, 24,000 since I got letters. Can you recollect anyone else 
 who has got letters ?" The witness said that he did not under- 
 stand this question. The Petitioner : " Did you take a note of 
 them (the three 'Arnold' letters?") Witness : "No. I have my 
 memory, and it is as clear as yours !" The witness said further 
 that he had not seen Coningham since about the second week in 
 January. He had received a subpoena the day before (25th March). 
 On the last occasion that Coningham called he was, said the witness, 
 with Mr. R. A. Miller, who had since gone to the war. The Peti- 
 tioner vehemently declared that he never went with R. A. Miller in 
 his life. He called with a man named Pearce. Witness reiterated: 
 4< I say Miller. I had a conversation with him, and he said he was 
 going to South Africa. He asked us to have a 'wet.' " (Promptly- 
 suppressed laughter). He (witness) referred to Mr. R. A. Miller, 
 in the employ of Mr. Moss. Witness did not know Pearce from 
 Mr. E. R. Abigail's office. This General Post Office official swore 
 emphatically that Coningham did not call for the last time to ask 
 for letters on the 3rd December. Further, the witness stated that 
 Coningham came to him for letters addressed to Wilson some four 
 or five times. The first time he called was somewhere in August, 
 after the Petitioner had returned from Brisbane. Or, at least, Con- 
 ingham told witness that he had just returned from Brisbane. 
 Witness had not been interviewed by the Postmaster-General on 
 this matter. Mr. Want here pointed out that there was then no 
 State Postmaster-General. The Post Office was under the Federal 
 Postmaster-General. Witness, in answer to the Petitioner, said 
 that he had not had one word about this matter with the late State 
 Postmaster-General (the Hon. W. P. Crick). Yesterday morning 
 (25th March) he, witness,had been called in by the Superintendent, 
 Mr. W. J. Davies, and spoken to. He was told by that gentleman 
 to answer any questions put by Mr. Slattery. The Superintendent 
 inquired if he knew whether Coningham came to the window, and 
 if he at any time received letters under the names of " Arnold" or
 
 2J4 THE CONINGHAM CASK. 
 
 " Wilson." Mr. Drake was the supreme head of the Post Office, 
 Mr. Crick had no connection with the Department, and had had 
 none since the ist March. He (witness) had seen the name 
 " Arnold " in the newspapers ; but the Department's employees 
 were prohibited from saying anything to people outside the G. P.O. 
 of what transpired inside. He remembered the time when Coning- 
 ham last called because it was absolutely necessary in their Depart- 
 ment to recollect those who called for letters not in their own 
 names. The Post Office clerks did not keep a record of a letter 
 for Coningham (addressed to " Arnold") because he (Coningham) 
 was so well-known to them. After a brief re-examination by Mr. 
 Want, this witness left the box. 
 
 FATHER O'GORMAN'S EVIDENCE. 
 
 Mr. Want, addressing his Honor, said that he had a special 
 reason for putting in the baptismal record of Vincent Francis Con- 
 ingham. He, therefore, wished to call Father O'Gorman, who 
 baptised the child. 
 
 John O'Gorman, Priest at St. Mary's Cathedral, stated that he 
 performed the baptismal ceremony on the child of Mrs. Coningham, 
 and it was christened Vincent Francis Coningham. Mr. Want here 
 handed a document to the witness, asking if it were an abstract 
 from the baptismal record. The reverend father said that it was, 
 and the date was the 28th December, 1899. In answer to a ques- 
 tion by the Senior Counsel, the witness stated that the 2gth June 
 was a fete day in the Roman Catholic Church a day of great devo- 
 tiona day of holy obligation the same as was Sunday. It was 
 the feast-day of St. Peter and St. Paul. In 1898, the 2gth June 
 fell on a Wednesday. 
 
 THE PETITIONER'S CROSS-EXAMINATION. 
 
 In answer to a series of questions bearing on the sanctity of 
 the feast-day of SS. Peter and Paul, the Rev. J. O'Gorman said 
 that a priest was certainly permitted to go on that day to a party 
 or a festivity. Anything that was lawful was permitted. On that 
 day, the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, it was the duty of priests to 
 say Mass. There was no objection to a birthday party in the 
 evening. The day was the same as a Sunday, and devotions were 
 not kept up on Sunday all day long. Mr. Want interjected that 
 that was quite right. He went to birthday parties on Sunday 
 himself. Mr. Ralston opined that people could not help their 
 birthdays falling on Sunday (mild laughter). Mr. Want said that 
 some people went fishing on a Sunday (more mild laughter). 
 
 "THE RELIEF OF 'BURRILDA'!" 
 
 Mrs. Trenery Marquet, sworn and examined by Mr. Want, 
 gave a lively description of a festive function " The Relief of 
 Burrilda," referred to in another part of this " History of the 
 Coningham Case."
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 275 
 
 " Mrs. Marquet deposed that she was a widow, and became 
 housekeeper for Mr. Miller at Fairfield on the 23rd February, 1901. 
 On the date of her appearance in the witness-box she still held the 
 same position. She had been served with a subpcena from Mr. 
 Coningham. The Petitioner, at this point, interjected that he had 
 never sent Mrs. Marquet a subpcena. He explained that he took 
 one out, but had the copy of it in his pocket. It transpired that 
 the original was sent, but the Petitioner held that as he still bad 
 the copy he could not have subpoenaed the witness. His Honor 
 examined the subpcena produced by Mrs. Marquet. It had been 
 signed by the Petitioner, and his Honor held that it was the 
 original subpcena, and was in proper order. 
 
 In answer to the Senior Counsel for the Defence, the 
 witness said that until February last Mrs. Coningham was a 
 stranger to her. She first saw the Respondent on a Friday 
 evening, when she arrived at Fairfield. It was on the same day 
 that witness herself came to the place to take the position of 
 housekeeper. The Respondent told witness that her name was 
 " Mrs. Coningham," and said that her luggage, which she had 
 labelled " Mrs. Arnold," would follow. The witness did not ask 
 her why she had so labelled her luggage. Coningham came up on 
 the Sunday morning after the Friday his wife arrived. Mrs. 
 Coningham cleaned up the children in order to see their " Daddy.'* 
 The Petitioner, in angry tones, demanded of the witness, " Which 
 children?" "Your children," sweetly replied Mrs. Marquet. 
 "How do you know?" thundered Boaner-.es Coningham. Mr. 
 Want, like a gentle mentor in a reformatory, remarked to the 
 Petitioner: "You don't do your cause much good by this 
 behaviour ;" and, turning to the witness, he continued his examina- 
 tion. Mrs. Marquet, in reply to Counsel, stated that she saw Mrs. 
 Coningham in her bedroom (an hour after the arrival of the 
 Petitioner) and she saw Mr. Coningham open the door and go in 
 also. He closed the door after him, and remained with his wife 
 for about ihe space of half-an-hour. Witness did not, however, 
 see the pair come out. She next saw Mrs. Coningham at the 
 dining-room table during the dinner-hour The little girl, Mabel, 
 sat between the adult Coninghams. Before going into the dining- 
 room, the Petitioner said, " Keep my dinner hot in the oven, as I 
 shall not come in yet awl>ile !" He was then carving poultry in 
 the kitchen. The Petitioner here interjected : " Well, I am a lot 
 of things!'' " H'm !" commented Counsel, "You're a handy 
 man !" According to witness, the Petitioner showed his extreme 
 handiness by taking with him up to "Burrilda" three bottles 
 of stout, in a basket, for the delectation of the fair Respondent 
 She did not see him with any oysters. Miss Ashe arrived at 
 " Burrilda" on the Tuesday. No ! it was not correct that she was 
 on Monday drinking with Mrs. Coningham, as she said. ' 'n 
 Wednesday they celebrated "The Relief of Burrilda!" (This 
 announcement by the witness was greeted with shrieks otlau s iiur.
 
 276 THE COXIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 Even the Judge was compelled to relax his features). The Senior 
 Counsel for the Defence had thought that this was another 
 Mafeking excuse ! (More laughter). " What did ' The Relief 
 of Burrilda ' consist of?" "Wine, sandwiches, porter, and 
 brandy !" (Cyclonic laughter ) " That," said the Counsel with 
 meditative unction, " was a good mixture. " Witness then 
 explained that Mr. Miller's Tadmor in the Wilderness, " Burrilda " 
 to wit, was to be sold off. The sale was stopped before the 
 clysmic fall of the expatriating hammer, and "The Relief of 
 Burrilda " was celebrated with whole hearts and full bottles. The 
 flag was kept flying amid the jubilation of the garrison, and corks 
 were drawn and glasses clinked in glad and festive harmony. The 
 wine was colonial ; but the joy was celestial. But celebrations of 
 every sort are nearly always fatal to somebody. A few of the cele- 
 brators became "a wee bit fou'." Mrs. Marquet said that they 
 were "elevated" Mrs. Coningham was not "elevated." On the 
 contrary, she was laid low, am.! had to be carried to bed. Counsel 
 suggested that it was a " wake." But this was ridiculous. 
 Nobody was dead unless it were the fair Respondent, in a sense 
 hardly complimentary to a blue-ribbon saint Mr. Want rather 
 unnecessarily asked if the Respondent "took too much!" "Oh, 
 yes," said " Burrilda's " housekeeper, that she did! The Peti- 
 tioner, with ferocious animus, " W-h-wh-a-t !" The Counsel 
 asked Mrs. Marquet if she saw the fair misdemeanant in the 
 morning. Mr. Want, with a giddy twinkle in the near-side optic, 
 opined " there was a difference in the morning !" (A Court-house 
 full of Stoic philosophers thereupon guffawed.) Oh, yes ! her 
 condition was pitiable. She was very ill indeed ! The witness 
 was strong in her assertion that Mrs. Coningham had not been 
 drugged. There was no truth whatever in such an allegation. 
 " H'm," said the burly King's Counsel, " she said she drank only 
 port-wine !" Witness said, with especially feminine emphasis, 
 "No! She drank wine, porter, and brandy!" In the morning 
 she asked the witness to look for two letters which she stated had 
 been stolen from her. Mrs. Coningham said that the documents 
 were of little use to anyone but herself ; but for her they had 
 important information. They were written almost in cypher and 
 were signed "Mabel !" Witness had not seen the letters, neither 
 did she know that Mrs. Coningham had received them. Further, 
 the Respondent told Mrs. Marquet, she would have to tell Mr. 
 Coningham about her collapse at the "Relief of Burrilda"; 
 because if that Champion of Chivalry heard of it for the first time 
 in Court he would blow her brains out. After the siege had been 
 raised, and prosperity smiled again on Fort Miller, Mrs. Coningham 
 remained at the seat of war until Saturday afternoon. Then Mr. 
 Want asked the witness a question concerninga tattoo-mark. Mrs. 
 Marquet replied : "She (the Respondent) said she knew where it 
 was, and that she got the information from someone who knew \ 
 but she (the Respondent) dared not mention it in Court for fear
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 277 
 
 ttre Co-respondent might not have told her the truth. If she had 
 had that information at the last trial, she could have squashed the 
 Case !' In answer to another question by Mr. Want, the witness 
 said that " The Relief of Burrilda " lasted for two nights Wed- 
 nesday and Thursday nights. Festivities " knocked off" at about 
 2.30 a.m. on Thursday morning. Mrs. Coningham had been put 
 to bed by Mrs. Lewis and Miss Ashe. Next week or thereabout, 
 Mrs. Marquet stated that she had communicated with Mr. T. M. 
 Slattery. Yes, she thought that Mr. Miller was down to town 
 every day. 
 
 MRS. MARQUET'S CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE PETITIONER. 
 
 In answer to a request of Coningham, the witness handed him 
 the subpoena, and he compared it with the copy of the erne he had 
 made. In answer to a question, Mrs. Marquet said that when she 
 came to Sydney she went to the office of Mr. T. M. Slattery. 
 Witness stated in further cross-examination that, while house- 
 keeper at " Burrilda" she did part of the cooking, and Miller did 
 part. When told by the Petitioner to put his dinner away he (Con- 
 ingham) was in the kitchen. She remembered that the Petitioner 
 arrived between 10.30 and u a.m., with Mr. Exton. He (Coning- 
 ham) had with him a basket with three bottles of stout in it Mrs. 
 Coningham had shown her (witness) one of them. The Petitioner 
 took the bag home with him full of grapes. While in the dining- 
 room, laying the table, witness said that she saw Coningham go 
 into the Respondent's room and that he remained there for half-an- 
 hour. Mrs. Coningham was already in the room. She fixed the 
 time at half-an-hour because she believed that Petitioner went from 
 the bedroom into the kitchen when he came out to carve the poul- 
 try. Coningham asked the witness if she had been offered 100 
 to come to Court and give evidence, provided he lost the Case. 
 This allegation Mrs. Marquet emphatically denied. She had never 
 told anyone at " Burrilda" that she would get \oo and a silk dress. 
 She said, in answer to a series of questions by Coningham, that she 
 barricaded her door at night because there was no lock on the door, 
 and she trusted no man ! Mr. Want pertinently asked how the 
 Petitioner knew all this. Yes, continued witness, she was up till 
 2 o'clock in the morning at "The Relief of Burrilda." No, she 
 was not drunk ! She had only had one glass of wine. It was not 
 a fact that Mrs. Coningham, after drinking a glass and a half of 
 wine fell off her chair insensible. Neither did she tell her (witness) 
 the next morning that she had been drugged and robbed. Mr. 
 Miller told witness that he went into the room to remove a lighted 
 candle from the chest of drawers, as he was afraid of the danger 
 from fire. Mr. Miller and Miss Ashe had drink for drink with Mrs. 
 Coningham. No one opened the bedroom door when he (the Peti- 
 tioner) went into the room he opened the door himself. Witness 
 was not aware that his little daughter Mabel was lying in the room 
 ill. After "The Relief of Burrilda," Mrs. Coningham was in
 
 278 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 bed until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and she was then helped on to 
 a wire stretcher very weak from vomiting. She (Mrs. Coningham) 
 was supposed to have left "Burrilda " in order to come to Sydney 
 to see a dress-maker. She caught the something to five train on 
 Saturday afternoon. After enumerating a number of persons who 
 attended ''The Relief of 'Burrilda,'" the witness was asked if 
 "Captain" Smith (of agricultural fame) was present? No, he 
 (Captain Smith) left on Tuesday. Mr. Miller was at " Burrilda" 
 on Tuesday and Wednesday. Witness received only expen-es to 
 attend the Court her train fare. On the night of " The Relief of 
 ' Burrilda' " Mrs. Conin^ham had to drink : 
 
 5 glasses of wine. 
 
 2 ,, porter, 
 
 3 ,, whisky (stiff.) 
 
 Witness corrected her evidence. They were glasses of brandy 
 not whisky. She (witness) took particular notice of what the 
 Respondent had to drink, because the relief garrison was "making 
 fun" of her condition. A number of irrelevant questions were then 
 put to the witness by the Petitioner, but her evidence remained un- 
 shaken. In answer to Mr. Want, the witness said thatshe assisted 
 Mrs. Coninghamto bed. Respondent told witness that she was going 
 to the dressmaker ; that Mr. Coningham had sent her ^"3 to get a 
 coat and skirt. Captain Smith left " Burrilda" before the " Relief." 
 In answer to the Petitioner, in re the ^"3 sent, the witness said 
 that Respondent remarked to her, " ' Conny' ; I thought it was 
 you !" Also that he (the Petitioner) liked Respondent best in a 
 coat and >kirt. 
 
 " CAPTAIN SMITH " AGRICULTURE T, EXPERT. 
 
 The celebrated " Agricultural Expert," " Captain Smith," was 
 next called. Among various bucolic duties he followed the calling 
 of a land and estate agent, a rent-collector, and a private detective. 
 Gay and festive ex-maiiner as he was, he had been in the Queen's 
 service for many years. Moreover, he held a master's and mate's 
 certificate in the mercantile marine, and he was otherwise a person 
 of much and varied experience. He had been employed to watch 
 Mrs. Coningham. He went up to Fairfield as the probable pur- 
 chaser of a little flat of land ; but the flat who was sold was not of 
 agricultural quality. " Captain Smith," otherwise William George 
 Waters, left Sydney by train on February 22nd, at about 1.30 
 p.m., and arrived at his destination at about half-past 4. He was 
 an ordinary boarder at " Burrilda." Mrs. Coningham arrived 
 later the same evening. Coningham himself arrived on a Sunday 
 with Mr. James Exton between n and half-past in the morning. 
 He (witness) had heard that the Respondent expected her husband. 
 About three-quarters of an hour after the arrival of the Petitioner, 
 he, Mrs. Coningham, Martin Gallagher and Exton went towards 
 the vineyard. The Petit i*Mier and Mie Respondent went down 
 just as man and wife would do. inrsi Exton came back, and then
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 279 
 
 Martin Gallagher, Coningham and his wife remained in a little 
 packing-shed. When they returned Mrs. Coningham went into 
 her bedroom and remained there for nearly ha!f-an-hour. She 
 went in first and the Petitioner followed close on her heels. Of 
 course he (witness) was there purposely watching them. He left 
 " Burrilda " on '1 uesday, the 26ih February. He was sent by 
 a private detective. 
 
 Petitioner: Do you keep a house and 
 1 md agency in Glenmore Road ? No, 
 it keeps me. 
 
 Did ycu tell the bootmaker the other 
 night in Glenmore Road when >ouwere 
 a bit tight that you were to get /too 
 if Coningham were defeated, ana you 
 would swear anything if he were 
 defeated ? Will you swear you did not 
 get ^35 on a watch ? I will swear I 
 dicl not 
 
 Petitioner : Who do you say went 
 down to the orchard at " Burrilda '? 
 Yourself, Gallagher, Exton, and Mrs. 
 Conii gham. There were two chil- 
 dren 
 
 Will you swear Mrs. Coningham 
 never went to pick grapes by herself? 
 She did afterwards. 
 
 Where were you sitting when she 
 came back ? In the sitting-room. 
 
 Petitioner : Who was cooking at the 
 time we went into the bedroom ? Mrs. 
 Marquet. 
 
 Did Mrs Marquet go in, too ? No ; 
 I only saw you and your wife go in. 
 She preceded you. 
 
 Wnere were you ? Standing in the 
 hall. 
 
 Witness stated in reply to further 
 quest ions that a number of persons who 
 were in the house were not in the 
 dining-room when Petitioner and Re- 
 spondent went into the b:-droom. 
 Petitioner had his boots off when he 
 came out. Witness saw them both 
 walking in through the front door. 
 He only lost sight of them for half a 
 minute. Witness was not at dinner, 
 but he saw it being served. He saw 
 Petitioner through an open window. 
 He was carving. Petitioner went in 
 from the kitchen to dinner. Witness 
 did not see Petitioner arrive at " Bur- 
 rilda," but he saw Ex; on come. He 
 saw Petitioner leave -with a basket; 
 Exton left with a box. 
 
 In further cross-examination bv Peti- 
 tioner, witness said Coningham and 
 Respondent remained together They 
 wen into the bedroom within five 
 seconds of one another. There could 
 
 be no mistake about that. It was some 
 two or three minutes before they we-n 
 into the bedroom after coming frcm 
 the balcony. Martin Gallagher. Mrs 
 Lewis, Mrs. Marquet, and Exton were 
 not in the dining-room when Petitioner 
 and Respondent went into the bedroom . 
 Exton was out in the back balcony 
 talking to witness. 
 
 Within five seconds I followed her 
 into the room. Did you keep your 
 eye on her after she went into the 
 room ? I could not. She was in her 
 o%vn room. 
 
 Did I unlock her door to go in ? 
 No ; it was open. 
 
 And then I came out within three 
 minutes of half-an-hour ? Yes ; by my 
 watch. 
 
 Did you see any stout there? Yes. 
 on the table, one bottle at a time. 
 
 What were they ? Full first, empty 
 afterwards. 
 
 Witness continuing his cross-examina- 
 tion stated Petitioner hardly sat down 
 at the table when his wife sat down. 
 He would swear she had not remained 
 there for ten minutes after he sat down. 
 Respondent's luggage came up on the 
 Saturday. Witness did not see it 
 arrive. 
 
 Petitioner : Did you see any brandy 
 or uhisky there ? Yes, some whisky. 
 
 Who took it up ? I did. Medical 
 comforts. 
 
 Did you drink it yourself? I did 
 not. 
 
 You doled it out to yourself? And 
 others. 
 
 Did you see any stout ? I saw Mrs. 
 Coningham and Miller drink a bottle 
 of stout between themselves. The 
 housekeeper might have had a spoonful 
 of it. ^ 
 
 Have you been in Exton's house ? 
 I remember you coming to shoot me. 
 You call-d m- a spy. That was on the 
 night of the mh. 
 
 His Honor : What has this to do 
 with the ( ase? 
 
 Peti ioner: Well, your Honor, I am 
 charged with attempted assassination now
 
 280 
 
 THE CON'INGHAM CASE. 
 
 Did you say I saw you on the first 
 night of this trial ? Yes. I went to 
 the back to ask for Exton. I was told 
 he was not in. You then rushed down 
 and said, "What do you want, you 
 spy ? " 
 
 Petitioner: What time was it, about 
 half-past 8 ? 
 
 His Honor: Really there must be- 
 some limit to this cross-examination. 
 
 Petitioner : It is attempted assassina- 
 tion, your Honor. 
 
 His Honor : Well, you must take 
 the answers that are given. 
 
 {Unstamped receipt enclosed in envelope containing "C's" Lyddite Shell see pp. 214 & 2 '5J 
 
 THE EVIDENCE OF JAMES EXTON. 
 
 James Exton, a shorthand-writer and clerk, employed at S. A, 
 Joseph and Rickard's, O'Connell Street, stated he had kno*\n 
 Coningham for about fifteen years. Mr. Exton played a great part 
 in the Case, and was wonderfully loved by Coningham, who was 
 accustomed to call him " Dear Jim." 
 
 Mr. Want : Did you ever send that Did you see on the first day of the 
 
 elegram purporting to be sent by you trial that he was asked about these re- 
 
 gistered letters ? Yes. 
 
 Was he at your place then ? Yes ; 
 he left on the Monday night of the 
 trial. 
 
 Some days before that you had made 
 some communication to Mr. Slattery's 
 
 to Miller ? Never. 
 
 Whose hand-writing is it ? It looks 
 like Mr. Coningham's. 
 
 Did you ever give him authority to 
 send it ? Never. 
 
 Did you ever see these letters (show- 
 ing to witness documents alleged to be 
 forgeries) ? No, except the receipt ; 
 but Mr. Coningham handed it to me 
 two or three days after he sent it. They 
 are all in Mr. Coningham's hand- 
 writing. He handed the receipt to me, 
 and said he had sent the money to his 
 wife at Miller's place in Fairfield. 
 
 office? I did. 
 
 And you had received an undertaking 
 that you would not be called as a wit- 
 ness ? Yes. 
 
 After he left what did he do? -He 
 issued a warrant against me for stealing 
 a lady's necklet. 
 
 Is there any foundation for the
 
 THE SECOXn TRIAL. 
 
 28 : I 
 
 charge ? None whatever. That I can 
 easily prove. 
 
 Since he prosecuted you, you signified 
 your willingness to come and give evi- 
 dence ? Yes ; but I decided before that 
 to give evidence. 
 
 He stated in Court that you had as- 
 saulted him and that he had given you 
 
 in charge? There is no truth in that. 
 
 Petitioner : I said I had been in- 
 sulted. 
 
 Witness : What I did was to ask him 
 to produce his revolver so that I could 
 make application to the Court to have 
 it taken away from him. 
 
 PETITIONER HANDS OVER A REVOLVER. 
 
 Witness (continuing his evidence) 
 stated that Petitioner wrote a letter to 
 him before he left his (witness's) house, 
 and told witness to put it into a match- 
 box, so that it would be safe. He also 
 said that he had a loaded revolver. 
 
 Petitioner : Yes, I have it here. (Sen- 
 sation in Court.) 
 
 Petitioner took the revolver out of 
 his pocket. 
 
 His Honor made a sign to him as if 
 
 [The policeman examined it to see if it were loaded, levelling- 
 it with unconscious but deadly accuracy at the Senior Counsel for 
 the Defence.] 
 
 to signify that the weapon was not to- 
 be shown in Court, and then said: If 
 there is a revolver in your pocket you 
 must take it out and give it to the 
 police. 
 
 The revolver was handed to a con- 
 stable. 
 
 Petitioner (to the constable) : Exa- 
 mine it, and see how many chambers 
 are in it. 
 
 Mr. Want (with humorous trepida- 
 tion) : It is loaded ; be careful of it. 
 
 Witness : He told me it belonged to 
 Mr. Dill-Macky. 
 
 Mr. Want : But did he say where he 
 got it from ? He told me he got it from 
 Mr. Dill-Macky. 
 
 What did he do with it? He went 
 out of the door and escorted me down 
 the Glenmore Road to within 100 yards 
 of where Mrs. Coningham lives, and 
 he said, " If anyone molests you, shoot 
 him." 
 
 He has told us that all that was in 
 the matchbox was some money. Is 
 that so ? There was not a penny-piece 
 in the matchbox. All that was in the 
 matchbox was a note from him the 
 note that he wrote in my house. I put 
 it into the box myself, but I didn't read 
 it. I went to the door, and asked to 
 see Mrs. Coningham. She refused to 
 see me. It was about half-past 7. 
 
 Witness : I went to the door, and 
 Mr. Connachie said Mrs. Coningham 
 said she would not see me, and that if I 
 had anything to give her I could throw 
 it in the door. I did so. Mr. Con- 
 nachie was there when I threw it in. 
 
 Is she still staying there ? Yes. 
 
 On the night of this trial starting you 
 took a letter up. Had you taken any 
 other letters up previously? Several 
 letters. .During the first trial I must 
 have taken twenty. 
 
 Did you take them from him to her, 
 or from her to him ? Both ways. 
 
 Have > ou any doubt that this is Mrs. 
 Coningham's hand-writing (showing 
 the letter to witness known as the " / 
 want money " letter) ? I have never seen 
 that letter before. I have no doubt it 
 is Mrs. Coningham's hand -writing. 
 
 Do you remember when at the last 
 trial the 2gth June was fixed on in this 
 matter ? I do. 
 
 Did you have any conversation with- 
 him about the trial ? He said, " If they 
 had seen the alteration in the confes- 
 sion they would have ' done" me." 
 
 Did he sav anything to you about the 
 2Qth June when the trial was over? 
 Yes; he said, " I will go to the Obser- 
 vatory and get a weather-chart. My 
 wife has sworn to a wrong date. She 
 ought to have sworn it was the first wet 
 night after that date." 
 
 Did he say anything about the selec- 
 tion of June 29? No. 
 
 They were then going to fix it for the 
 first wet night ? Yes. He asked me 
 to go with him, and I wentwithhim to 
 the Observatory. 
 
 He actually got a weather-chart? 
 He did not get one then, it had 
 to be posted to Mr. Abigail's office 
 to ^hirn. He told me he got it a few 
 days afterwards. 
 
 Do you remember about the confes- 
 sion? -Yes. He said, "If they had-
 
 282 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 noticed the alteration of the date he 
 would have been done with." 
 
 Petitioner : Was that after or before 
 the last trial ? 
 
 Witness : After. 
 
 Mr. Want : Do you know anything 
 .about the " striking" of the Jury ? I 
 do, sir. I was at Dill-Macky'sone night 
 and they produced that list (a paper 
 shown in Court). 
 
 Who are " they "? Two gentlemen 
 who were there. I do not know their 
 names. And they 1 ad an original list 
 of the Jury. 
 
 Mr. Want showed a paper to the 
 witness. 
 
 Witness : That is a copy one of the 
 gentlemen there made from a list that 
 was there. 
 
 Mr. Want: Just let his Honor see 
 the church paper that it is on. It is 
 marked in a certain way. It would be 
 hardly fair to the Jurymen to let them 
 see the names that are marked. It is 
 a complete Jury Panel. 
 
 His Honor: Yes, I see it is marked. 
 
 Mr. Want : I want the Jury to see 
 the mark in the corner. 
 
 His Honor: I can tell what it is. It 
 has printed on it Scots Church Manse, 
 9 Jamieson Street, 1901. There is a 
 device, "The Presbyterian Church of 
 New South Wa'e?." 
 
 Mr. Want : 'i ha whole Panel is here 
 (holding up the paper) giving the 48 
 :names. 
 
 The paper was folded up, and the 
 Jury allowed to see the heading. 
 
 Mr. Want : How many copies were 
 written out there? There was one 
 copy at the time that was written out. 
 One of the gentlemen there wrote me 
 that from the original copy. I marked 
 
 the crosses on it to correspond with the 
 crosses on the original copy. 
 
 Did he tell you whether the crosses 
 were the good ones or the bad ones ? 
 They said, "These are the ones we 
 have got. Can you get any others ?" 
 Mr. Want : I wanted to leave all this 
 out, but I could not, your Honor. 
 
 Petitioner : I will substantiate all 
 these marks. I will call the men. 
 
 Mr. W T ant : Was anything said at 
 that time about striking a list? Yes; 
 Mr. Dill-Macky came in late. He 
 asked me to take it down to Mrs. 
 Coningham. He said, " Take this list 
 down to Mrs. Coningham, and see 
 what names she can strike out. Keep 
 all the hotel-keepers out of it." 
 
 Mr. Want : That is a nice thing for 
 the hotel-keepers. However, they had 
 a stroke of luck there. 
 
 Witness : I delivered that message 
 to Mrs. Coningham, and the list. 
 
 Mr. Want : When did you get it 
 back again can you remember ? No, 
 I cannot remember. 
 
 When she gave it back to you did she 
 ask you to make any arrangements for 
 her ? Yes ; with Mr. Taylor, the 
 solicitor. She asked me to tell Mr. 
 Coningham that she would ring him up 
 at Taylor and Dowling's office at a 
 quarter to 10 o'clock the morning the 
 Trial was commenced. 
 Did you ring up ? No. 
 Mr. Want said he would like to put 
 in evidence the document mentioned 
 by the witness, but he would suggest 
 that the marks opposite the names be 
 obliterated. 
 
 His Honor: What do you want to 
 put it in evidence at all for ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Very well, your Honor, 
 I will refer to it. 
 
 AN APPLICATION REGARDING THE JURY PANEL. 
 
 Mr. Want : I have given Mr. Con- 
 ingham notice to produce in Court a 
 document which is a facsimile of this 
 document (the Jury List referred to by 
 the witness Exton). It is on blue 
 paper. 
 Petitioner: If it is here you can have it. 
 
 Mr. Want : I saw it there. It has a 
 blue ground, with the letters showing 
 out in white. 
 
 Petitioner: I do not know what you 
 are talking about. 
 
 Mr. Want : I am talking about the 
 facsimile of this (holding the document 
 containing the Jury List). It has a 
 
 blue-ground and the black letters in the 
 original come out white in it. Do you 
 say it was not on the table yesterday 
 afternoon ? 
 
 Petitioner : I say there are no other 
 papers than those I have here. 
 
 Mr. Want: Very well, we will have 
 it on oath. Will you go into the box ? 
 - Petitioner entered the witness-box. 
 
 Mr. Want : You have been sworn, 
 Mr. Coningham ? Yes. 
 
 Mr Want : That will do. We will 
 leave that for the present. We will 
 hear more ot it.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 28, 
 
 RESUMPTION OF "DEAR JIM EXTON S EVIDENCE. 
 
 " Dear Jim " was further examined by Mr. Want : 
 
 Mr. Want : She told you to tell her 
 husband she would be there ? No ; she 
 told me when she got there she would 
 rinj, r him up at a quarter to 10 in the 
 morning at Taylor's office. 
 
 When he gave you the butt of the 
 registered letter did he tell you what 
 name he was sending it in ? He did 
 not. 
 
 Did he tell you at any other time ? 
 I saw it as soon as he produced it to 
 me. and I asked him what he did it for 
 without my authority. He said it was 
 only to blind people. 
 
 It is registered and sent to Mrs, V. 
 Arnold, care of Miller. Is that the first 
 time you knew it was being sent to Mrs. 
 V. Arnold ? The first time I knew. 
 
 Mr. Want handed to the witness a 
 piece of paper containing some writing, 
 and asked him if he knew the names 
 upon it. 
 
 Witness said he knew the top name. 
 Mr. Want : Do you know if she goes 
 by her professional name ? I could 
 not tell you. 
 
 Do you remember going up to 
 Miller's place with Mr. Coningham 
 one Sunday? I have been there 
 several Sundays. 
 
 Mr. Want: The last Sunday he was 
 up there 
 
 Petitioner: Ask him when it was. 
 Don't tell him. 
 
 Mr. Want : When was the last Sun- 
 day ? I do not remember the date. 
 
 How long before the trial ? A fort- 
 night before the present trial. 
 
 Was it on a Sunday ? On a Sunday. 
 
 Do you remember arranging to go up 
 
 on the following Sunday ? We arranged 
 
 to go to Miller's place the following 
 
 Sunday by Parramatta. 
 
 Was it before Mrs. Arnold left there ? 
 Mrs. Arnold left there on the follow- 
 ing Saturday. 
 
 And you were to go up on the fol- 
 lowing Sunday? Mrs. Coningham 
 (Mrs. Arnold) was there then. 
 
 She was there on the Saturday. You 
 arranged to go up on the Sunday ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you know from him whether his 
 wife knew he was going? He sent a 
 post-card so he told me to Mr. 
 Miller to meet us at Parrarcatta so 
 that the people at Fairfield Station 
 might not notice him coming up. 
 
 Now about the first Sunday you went 
 up? That was the Sunday before we 
 went to Parramatta. We went from 
 our place in Darlinghurst in a cab to 
 Redfern Station, took the train to 
 Fairfield Station, and then went to- 
 Miller's. Mrs. Coningham was there. 
 Did he make arrangements then tO' 
 go up the following Sunday ? He did. 
 What happned then you said he 
 sent a post-card to meet him at Parra- 
 matta ? We got as far as Parramatta 
 Station. Mr. Miller told him his wife 
 had gone back on the previous day. 
 The Petitioner said to me, " You go to 
 ' Burrilda,' and see what is wrong there. 
 I will go down by the afternoon train, 
 and see Mrs. Coningham." He left 
 me in Parramatta, and I went on to 
 " Burrilda." I arrived back in town 
 about 10 o'clock. I went home, and he 
 was waiting for me. He kept me up 
 till i o'clock talking about some drug- 
 ging business. He said Mrs. Coning- 
 ham had been drugged. 
 
 Mr. Want : He said he had been 
 with his wife on the Sunday afternoon, 
 and she had explained to him all about 
 the drugging ? Yes. 
 
 She went into all the details of it ? 
 He said so. 
 
 Did she ever go into the details with' 
 yon ? No. 
 
 Did he tell you whether she said any- 
 thing about the letter? No; he did 
 not say anything about the letters. 
 
 Do you know anything about going 
 to Queensland ? Yes ; he said he was 
 going there to get some declarations 
 from Mr. Price, solicitor. He said his 
 wife had been blackguarded in Court, 
 and he must shield her. 
 
 Do you remember at any time while 
 the Case was going on last time having 
 any conversation with him as to some- 
 thing his wife said about it ? The first 
 Case? 
 
 Yes. There were several. 
 Tell me what they were when both 
 were present. It is such a long time 
 ago I cannot remember fully. Mrs. 
 Coningham complained about the 
 foolish way he was asking questions and 
 the foolish way he was addressing the 
 Jury, and said if Mr. Coningham had 
 done as she had told him it would have 
 been much better for him.
 
 -.284 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 .Do you remember her at any time 
 saying any thing about any questions? 
 Several times. She wrote down some 
 questions for Mr Coningham to ask 
 one witness the midwife. 
 
 Did she say anything about some 
 questions she had been sending him ? 
 It is such a long time ago I cannot re- 
 msmber. There were several. 
 
 With regard to the Jury Panels, have 
 you seen any of these struck off on blue 
 
 paper? I have seen the photograph 
 copy of one. 
 
 How were these taken off the twenty ? 
 Were they all written that night ? 
 There were only two that night. One 
 Mr. Dill-Macky had. 
 
 That is the one handed to you? - 
 Yes. I know the man by sight ; I do 
 not know his name. 
 
 That is the one handed to you? 
 Yes, in Mr. Dill-Macky's house. 
 
 'The Rec. W . A/. Dill-Macky to Coniii^iuim on Kith Jainnny,
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 25 
 
 r ***' 
 
 Artintr CvniHfiliani '-) /' Solnitat. Mr. E. It. Abigail, rfquesliiti; the latter Ic hand 
 ovtr documents, etc . in the Caff to James Exton.}
 
 286 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 "DEAR JIM" is CROSS-EXAMIMED BY "DEAR 'CONNY.' 
 
 Are you at present in a situation ? 
 No, you and Dill-Macky knocked Tne 
 out of that. 
 
 How did I do that ? You have 
 totally ruined me and mv family by 
 going to see Mr. Kickard and Mr. 
 Whitehouse. 
 
 Was my arresting you for robbery 
 the cause of this? I received a sub- 
 poena from Mr. Slattery.and I attended 
 the Court for three days and I got 
 notice. 
 
 Yet you say the Rev. Dill-Macky and 
 myself were the cause of your dis- 
 missal ? Yes. 
 
 It was Mr Slattery did it, was it ? 
 No, it was not. 
 
 It was me, was it ? Yes, you went 
 down and saw Mr. Whitehouse. Yes. 
 It was your Case that got me my dis- 
 missal. 
 
 When did I see Mr. Whitehouse? 
 Last Saturday week. 
 
 Were you dismissed from your posi- 
 tion before that ? No. 
 
 Is that your hand-writing (handing 
 witness a paper) ? That is my hand- 
 writing. I have simply said it was 
 your Case. 
 
 Did you write this ? I did. 
 
 Is this it? "Dear Sir, I beg to ac- 
 knowledge receipt of your letter of yes- 
 terday's date enclosing a cheque for 
 -z 53., being one week's salary in lieu 
 of notice. Since I have come to you I 
 have learned the ways of yourself and 
 Mr. Whitehouse, and I should be sorry 
 to lose your confidence. On Saturday 
 I was subpoenaed in the Case of Mr. 
 Coningham. I have no alternative but 
 to obey the subpoena, and I regret that 
 the law's operations should have ter- 
 minated an employment that I hoped 
 would have lasted for some years. I 
 hope you will send me a reference." 
 That was before the Saturday I saw 
 him ? Yes, I said it was your Case. I 
 could have got back but for you and 
 Dill-Macky. 
 
 You said I was the cause of your dis- 
 missal ? No ; I said your Case was. 
 
 Did you give a single woman a neck- 
 let purporting to come from your dead 
 mother ? I did not. 
 
 His Honor : I won't allow the Case 
 to go" into that. I won't allow this 
 matter to be gone into here. 
 
 Petitioner : I wish to show what sort 
 of witness this is. 
 
 His Honor: You cannot go into this 
 here. 
 
 Am I not prosecuting you for rob- 
 bery ? Yes, unfortunately. I ought to 
 be prosecuting you. 
 
 Did you not threaten to kick my en- 
 trails out outside the Court ? No 
 
 Where did you say that thing was- 
 given you ? In Dill-Macky's house. 
 
 Not that one; I mean the receipt. 
 That was given to me in town two or 
 three days after I had sent it away, by 
 yourself. 
 
 Did you tell anybody it was given to- 
 you in Parramatta? No. 
 
 You will swear that ? Yes. 
 
 Petitioner : I will refer to the notes- 
 of evidence, your Honor. 
 
 Witness : It was shown to me in 
 Parramatta or town, I can hardly say 
 which . 
 
 Did you say I had to meet Miller at 
 Parramatta, so that the Fairfield peo- 
 ple sbould not see me ? You did. 
 
 That was because Mrs. Coningham 
 was there ? I understood it to be so. 
 
 The Sunday previous to that did I 
 go on to Miller's ? Yes, 
 
 Was Mrs. Coningham there ? She 
 was. 
 
 Was there any disguise that day ? 
 The only disguise was that you took a 
 cab from Darlinghurst to the Railway 
 Station so no one would see us go. 
 
 Did you not call a cab because you 
 thought we would be late ? I did not. 
 because we were there twenty minutes 
 before the train left. 
 
 Did you not get a drink and did I not 
 wait for you ? No, I got some tobacco. 
 
 A good penman, are you not ? - 
 Pretty good. 
 
 One of the best in Australia? I 
 have not that reputation. 
 
 Ever do illuminated addresses ? 
 Never. 
 
 Did you ever tell me you could copy 
 anybody's signature in ten minutes ? 
 No. 
 
 Did you ever tell me you had forged 
 W. Mooney's signature for ^700? 
 Never. 
 
 Did you not go to England on it ? 
 No. 
 
 Have you recently received a docu- 
 ment from Mr. Montagu ?- Yes.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 287 
 
 [Coningham is very amusing ! " Dear Jim " was erstwhile a 
 trusty agent in the procuration and custody of documents, as see 
 page 285.] 
 
 Petitioner: How did you get it? 
 By Mrs. Coningham undertaking to 
 get it. You sent Mrs. Coningham to 
 Montagu. 
 
 Will you swear that you never took 
 her to Montagu ? You asked me to do 
 it. 
 
 And on that document he gave you 
 
 the statement she was supposed to have 
 made ? Yes 
 
 Was it in her hand-writing ? No. 
 
 Did she sign it ? No. 
 
 Did you sign for it ? No, never. 
 
 You absolutely swear that ? Yes. 
 
 Petitioner : I have served a notice on 
 Mr. Neville Montagu to produce. May 
 I call him in now ? 
 
 His Honor: Yes. 
 
 MR. MONTAGU IS CALLED. 
 
 Mr Neville Montagu was then called. 
 
 Mr. Montagu said : I have received 
 notice to produce all papers held by 
 me belonging to the Respondent. I 
 only have an affidavit by the Re- 
 spondent that was not used. I submit 
 with great respect I should not be 
 asked to produce it unless the Re- 
 spondent agrees to it. 
 
 Petitioner : May I ask the Respond- 
 ent ? She is in Court. 
 
 His Honor: What do you say, Mr. 
 Want ? 
 
 Mr. Want : I have no objection 
 
 Mrs. Coningham stepped forward. 
 
 Petitioner (to Respondent) : I ask 
 you may I have a certain document 
 that is in Mr Montagu's possession? 
 
 Mrs. Coningham: I do not know 
 what it has to do with me. 
 
 His Honor: Do you give your con- 
 sent or not? 
 
 Mrs. Coningham : I hardly know 
 what 10 do. Is it the statement 5 
 
 Mr. Montagu : I have not the state- 
 ment. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham : That is the only 
 docume.it he had. I did not give him 
 any document. When I consulted Mr. 
 Montagu I told him certain facts, and 
 
 he wrote them down. I do not know 
 of any other document. 
 
 His Honor : I understand it was 
 some affidavit. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham : He had prepared 
 an affidavit for me. I thought his 
 Honor Justice Simpson had that. 
 
 Mr. Montagu. I have that. 
 
 Mrs. Coningham : I do not under- 
 stand. I have no objection to that. 
 I thought it was in Court previously. 
 
 Mr. Montagu handed the document 
 to Mr. Coningham. 
 
 Petitioner : That is not the one. 
 
 Mr. Montagu : That is the only docu- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Want : May I solve this diffi- 
 culty ? I understand Mr. Montagu 
 says he has a receipt for the document 
 he handed over to the last witness. 
 That is Mr. Montagu's property. I 
 have no objection to have it produced. 
 
 Mr. Montagu: That is my properly, 
 and I have no objection to produce it. 
 
 Petitioner : The receipt purporting 
 to be signed by Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 Mr. Montagu : Yfs. That is right 
 
 Petitioner : That is the document I 
 want, youi Honor. 
 
 EXTOX AGAIN AT THE WICKETS. 
 
 The cross-examination of the witness 
 was resumed. 
 
 You say there war, a receipt given 
 you with Mrs. Coninghn.m's signature ? 
 You swear you never signed for it ? 
 I don't think I did. 
 
 Is that your signature ? It is. I 
 did not think I had signed it. It was 
 an undertaking for me to receive cer- 
 tain documents 
 
 Did you ever send a telegram to 
 Miller ? I never did. Wait a minute. 
 I don't think I did. 
 
 Petitioner : May I leave this tele- 
 gram in for identification ? 
 
 His Honor : Yes. 
 
 In this paper you swear to this top- 
 writing ? I do. 
 
 And the bottom ? - Yes. 
 
 His Honor : The whole of it ? 
 
 Except the signature of Mrs. Coning- 
 ham. 
 
 Mr. Want : I object to this at pre- 
 sent, as I don't know what it is 
 about. 
 
 Petitioner: I want to compare the
 
 2-8S 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 hand-writing on this and on the tele- 
 gram. 
 
 His Honor : You must have it marked 
 for identification. 
 
 This was done. 
 
 You say you went a fortnight ago for 
 thisdocument. Now, you say a month ? 
 Yes. You asked me 10 go down and 
 get it because you could not pay the 
 costs 
 
 Did you pay the costs ? No Some 
 is owing still. You asked me to see 
 several solicitors to take it up for Mrs. 
 Coningham. 
 
 You told Mr. Montagu Mrs. Coning- 
 ham wanted him? I went to Mr. 
 Montagu and asked him on your 
 behalf to look after Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 Did you tell him on my behalf ? I 
 did not tell him on your behalf. I went 
 on your behalf. 
 
 Did you find that out after I prose- 
 cuted you ? I did not. I object to you 
 saying you prosecuted me. I am an 
 honourable man. 
 
 What is Mr. Proctor to you? A 
 friend of mine. 
 
 Why did you give the document to 
 him if you got it from me ? You were 
 in Brisbane. 
 
 Did I ask you for it when I came 
 back ? No. 
 
 Then what could I want it for if I 
 did not ask for it ? Did you sell it to 
 Mr. Slattery? I did not. I will abso- 
 lutely swear I did not see Mr. Slattery 
 over this in any way. 
 
 Did you give it to Proctor to give 
 to Slattery ? I gave it to Proctor. I 
 do not know what he did with it. 
 
 How much have you got to come 
 here ? Have you been offered ^500 to 
 come here and ruin me ? (Laughter in 
 Court.) No. 
 
 Did you tell a man named Connachie 
 that you were going to swear certain 
 things about me? I did not. I told 
 him I must consider my position and 
 my wife and children. 
 
 Petitioner asked a question about 
 witness's marital relations. 
 
 His Honor : I will not allow these 
 questions to be asked or answered . 
 
 Petitioner: You do not know the 
 sort of man I want to get at. 
 
 Mr. Want: It was "dear Jim" not 
 long ago. .(Laughter.) 
 
 Will you swear that you never came 
 up with me on the first Tuesday of this 
 Trial to where Mrs. Coningham was 
 
 living? I do not think so. I went up 
 on the Monday night. 
 
 You remember the Monday night. 
 What happened then? You wrote a 
 note, and I put it in a match-box and 
 took it to Connachie's house. 
 
 Will you swear I was in your house 
 on the Monday night ? Yes ; you 
 were there writing the letter. 
 
 You say you put a letter in a match- 
 box. Did you keep the letter ? No. 
 
 What did you do with it ? I threw 
 it in Connachie's door. 
 
 Did you give Mrs. Coningham 355. 
 that Sunday? No. You never gave 
 me any for her. 
 
 You say you took a number of 
 letters for me to Mrs. Coningham ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Was there not money in a number of 
 the letters? I do not know. 
 
 Did you ever see me there when Mrs. 
 Coningham was there ? Yes. 
 
 You swear that ? Yes. 
 
 Did you ever see me go upstairs when 
 Mrs. Coningham was there ? Yes. 
 
 You swear that ? Yes. 
 
 Petitioner: My God, I'll make you 
 prove that ! 
 
 Mr. Want repeated the remark. 
 
 His Honor said it was most improper, 
 and if Petitioner had a Counsel he 
 would not tolerate it for a moment. 
 
 A Juryman : As matters are going on 
 now, with all this laughter, it looks to 
 me more of a theatrical business than 
 a Case going on. 
 
 His Honor : If you do not want this lint 
 of cross-examination to froceed I will soon 
 stop it. You can quite understand that as 
 Mr. Coningham is conducting his own Case 
 I naturally give him more latitude and 
 extend more patience to him than I would 
 extend to Counsel. 
 
 A Juryman : I am not speaking about 
 Mr. Coningham I am referring to the 
 a ghter that has been going on. As a 
 bu dness man I feel this Trial very much, 
 and cannot afford to lose three weeks. 
 I think that in cases like this a special 
 Jury of independent men should be 
 picked. 
 
 Petitioner : I am sorry to have to do 
 this, but when accusations are made I 
 must try and refute them. 
 
 His Honor : Never mind. Go on as 
 fast as you can. 
 
 Petitioner to witness : Do you know
 
 THli SKCOND 1KIAI.. 
 
 289 
 
 the contents of the letter in the match- 
 box ? Not a word. It was a letter in 
 your hand-writing, and was put into an 
 ordinary matchbox. 
 
 Do you say that Mrs. Coningham 
 said to you she would ring me up at 
 9.45 am. about the Jury? It was 
 either that she would ring you up, or 
 you would ring her up at Mr. Taylor's 
 office. 
 
 .Did .you make those marks on the 
 Jury List? Yes. I did it whilst you 
 were in Brisbane. 
 
 Did you receive any instructions 
 from me? You sent me to the Rev. 
 Dill-Macky's house to do all I could for 
 j-ou whilst you were away. I was to 
 see how the brief was fastened up. 
 
 [Exton's evidence shows throughout that the Rev. Dill-blacky 
 (with and without the hyphen) was a consistent friend and 
 " barracker " for Petitioner Coningham. But Exton's evidence is 
 amply corroborated by numerous documents which have already 
 appeared in this work. There is the famous Jury List, with the 
 Manse stamp upon it (see pages 80-2) ; there is the letter to Major 
 Gilchrist (see pages 97-8), asking that gentleman to act as Secretary 
 to the Coningham Relief Fund, also with the Manse stamp; there is 
 the type-written appeal on behalf of Coningham (see page 100), 
 again the Manse stamp; there is Coningham's letter of the iath 
 March to " Z-ero " No. 2, signed "Justice " (see page 108), enclosed 
 in an envelope sealed with the Dill-Macky seal (see page 109) ; 
 there is Coningham's infamous " Lyddite Shell " (see pages 214-5), 
 with which was enclosed an unstamped receipt for two guineas, 
 signed by " W. M. Dill-Macky " as honorary treasurer (see page 
 280) ; there is the subscription list on page 220, with the Manse 
 stamp ; and there is Dill-Macky's own letter to Arthur Coningham 
 on page 284. Verily, the poor Presbyterian " Chevalier of Pro- 
 testantism," as he has been called, was hood-winked and blinded by 
 prejudice, bigotry, and all uncharitableness.] 
 
 You say that Mrs. Coningham told 
 you everything about the drugging? 
 You told me she told you. 
 
 Did they not tell you about it up at 
 Miller's ? No ; they did not mention 
 it to me. The first I knew about it was 
 when you told me. 
 
 Do you say that I, in your company, 
 spoke to Mrs. Coningham about this or 
 the last Case ? About the last Case 
 several times. 
 
 About this Case? I don't think so. 
 
 Only about the first Case? Yes ; I 
 have left you at Mr. Abigail's office, 
 and walked home with her alone. 
 
 Will you swear I was at Abigail's 
 house with Mrs. Coningham ? 1 will 
 give a straightforward answer. You 
 tantalise a witness. You and I were at 
 Mr. Abigail's office at Paddington on 
 ycur Case at a quarter-past u o'clock 
 at night." You sent me to fetch Mrs. 
 Coningham up to have a conversation. 
 I brought her up, and left you tsvo that 
 night at a quarter-past u o'clock. You 
 
 did not return home until 2 o'clock in 
 the morning, when you said you had 
 " squared " the matter with Mrs. Con- 
 ingham. 
 
 Was that before the last Case? 
 Yes. 
 
 And I did what ? I " squared" what ? 
 You said you were with Mrs. Con- 
 ingham outside Abigail's office. You 
 did not arrive home until after 2 o'clock, 
 when you said you had a good yarn 
 with Mrs. Coningham, and had got 
 everything " squared" up. That is 
 absolutely true. 
 
 Was Mr- Abigail there ? - No ; lie 
 saw you that night in his house. 
 
 You mean in Point Piper Road ? 
 Yes; you met Mrs. Coningham forty 
 yards from Mr. Abigail's house. Really, 
 Mr. Coningham, I should know. 
 
 Where did you go ? I went home. 
 
 Have you ever been in Connachie s 
 house with me and Mrs. Coningham ? 
 Yes, and some of the Connachies.
 
 290 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Was there any other company in the 
 room talking about the Case ? Yes ; 
 it was all Case. 
 
 You said that during the last' trial 
 Mrs. Coningham got on to me for the 
 way I addressed the Jury ? Certainly, 
 and on to me also for not instructing 
 you a little bit more. 
 
 How could she say anything to you 
 during the last trial about the way I 
 addressed the Jury, seeing that I did 
 not do so until the last day of the trial? 
 I mean that she spoke about the 
 matter after the last trial She said, 
 " Why did he not put this and that to 
 the Jury." She also said, " You were 
 a big fool. Why did you not put this 
 in your Address to the Jury ?" 
 
 Do you know a man named " Captain 
 Smith " ? I do not 
 
 Did Mrs. Coningham give you notes- 
 to give to me at any time ? -Yes, three. 
 
 Did you give them to me? No, I 
 handed one to you, and the other two 
 to Mr. Proctor. 
 
 How long ago was that ? On March 
 joth last. Mr. Connachie was with me- 
 when she gave me the third one. 
 
 Is that one of the documents? I 
 have sworn I have never seen this in 
 my life. 
 
 Have you seen these documents 
 marked 12 and 13? One of them is a 
 letter Mrs. Coningham gave to me. 
 
 Mr Want : That is the one contain- 
 ing the words, " If you deny the Arnold 
 letter so will I." 
 
 Petitioner : Will you swear you never 
 wrote that yourself? Never injny life. 
 
 Will you swear that you never got 
 the necklet out of this envelope? Yes r 
 a thousand times I swear it. 
 
 [The subsequent necklet case, Coningham v. Exton, was prac- 
 tically a complete resume of the Case in Divorce, albeit it was a mere- 
 Police Court affair. Exton proved that so far from robbing Coning- 
 ham of the necklet he had advanced him 305. upon it to give to the 
 Respondent. Exton subsequently summoned the Police for the 
 trinket, and got it. It is now one of " Dear Jim's" most treasured 
 possessions.] 
 
 Petitioner: You have had a lot of my 
 hand-writing in your possession ? 
 
 Exton : I have a promissory-note of 
 yours in my pocket. (Laughter,) 
 
 Will you show it to me ? Here it is. 
 I wish you would pay it. (Laughter.) 
 
 Petitioner having looked at it said : 
 " When did you get this "? There is a 
 date on it when you gave it to me. 
 
 At this stage the Petitioner examined 
 the promissory-note by means of a 
 magnifying-glass, and then said : Will 
 you absolutely swear you never signed 
 that promissory-note yourself? Cer- 
 tainly I will. 
 
 Petitioner : Your Honor, may I keep 
 this ? (Loud laughter.) I do not mean 
 to keep it altogether, but to have it 
 kept in Court. I never saw this in all 
 my life. 
 
 His Honor : You want the Associate 
 to keep it for the present ? 
 
 Petitioner : Yes, your Honor. 
 
 His Honor (to witness) : Have your 
 any objection ? 
 
 Witness : No, but I want the nvnrv 
 
 Petitioner: Have you presented this- 
 promissory-note? No 1 presented a 
 cheque of yours the other clay and it 
 was dishonoured. I will produce it 
 to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Want : For how much ? 
 
 Witness: For i. 
 
 Petitioner : This promissory-note is 
 marked due 3ist January ? - Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want : Let me see it. 
 
 Petitioner : Wait till I have done 
 with it. 
 
 Mr. Want : I wish to see the forgery. 
 
 Petitioner: This thing paralyses me 
 
 Mr. Want : I am not at all astonished 
 at that 
 
 Petitioner (to witness) : What was 
 this money for? -Tosupport yourwife. 
 
 Where did you get the money ? I 
 got it from a Mr. M . 
 
 At this stage the Court adjourned to 10 a.m. on the following 
 day. 
 
 MR. WANT'S DEMAND FOR A DOCUMENT. 
 
 Mr. Want said that on the previous day he had made a state- 
 ment to the effect that Mr. Ralston had seen a copy of the Jury
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 2 9 J 
 
 Panel on the table. Mr. Ralston, as Counsel, could not go into the 
 box, but he could make a statement. 
 
 Mr. Ralston said it was on Monday that Mr. Want drew his 
 attention to the fact that Mr. Coningham had the document amongst 
 his papers. He (Mr. Want) and himself had a copy of the docu- 
 ment, and he was therefore perfectly positive that he had seen the 
 document amongst the Petitioner's papers. He noticed the general 
 appearance, and was perfectly positive. 
 
 black. There were some black pieces 
 and some blue pieces. 
 
 Petitioner : Did the blue pieces have 
 a device in the corner ? 
 
 Mr. Want : The device was there. 
 The only difference was that the black 
 letters came out white on the blue 
 
 His Honor : Was it a list of names ? 
 
 Mr. Ralston : It was the same as the 
 one we had. 
 
 His Honor : I want to know what 
 you saw. 
 
 .\Ir. Ralston: It was in general ap- 
 psarance the same as this (holding up 
 th? document containing the Jury 
 Panel as produced by Mr. Want on 
 Tuesday). It had crosses and numbers 
 on like this, and apparently a list of 
 names besides these marks in the 
 corner. 
 
 Petitioner: Did you notice the colour 
 of the paper? 
 
 Mr. Ralston : There were several 
 pieces of paper amongst them like this 
 one (holding up a piece of paper), only it 
 had ablue face. I won't tax my memory 
 .to say whether the list was blue or 
 
 Petitioner: I absolutely swore that 
 such a thing was never in my posses- 
 sion, and I swear it now, if I never have 
 to live another minute. I never saw 
 such a thing. I only had the pieces of 
 paper that 1 showed Mr. \Va;nt yester- 
 day. That I will absolutely swear. The 
 last time I had to apologise to Mr 
 Want and Mr. Ralston because they 
 were looking over my papers 
 
 Mr. Want : I was not looking over 
 your papers. It was right on top. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JAMES EXTON. 
 
 Petitioner continued his cross-examination of James Exton. 
 
 Petitioner : Did you ever go under 
 .an alias? Never, not in any trade, 
 .business, or otherwise 
 
 F. j. Barnes? Not in any trade or 
 business. I might have done so with. 
 Ji oung lady 
 
 Did you give that necklet to a lady 
 in the name r.f F. J. Barnes? No; I 
 have air ady sworn it. I do not want 
 to swear it t \vic~. 
 
 Right you are! You say there was 
 a Jury List given to yo.i to give to 
 Mrs. Coningham Do > ou remember 
 when you gave it to her ? The day 
 after I received it from Dill-Mack} 's 
 place. 
 
 When did you gft it back? The 
 same afternoon. 
 
 Are \uu certain about that? lam 
 not certain. It was handed back to 
 me by Mrs. f'uniiigham. She made a 
 remark, sa ing Mr. Dill-Macky was 
 q ite right abui.t keeping out the botel- 
 Jteepers. 
 
 Did not she tell you at that inter- 
 
 view, when she handed you the paper 
 back, that she rung me up at the tele- 
 phone next morning.? I could not tell 
 you whether it was that morning or 
 another morning. She told me one 
 morning. 
 
 Did not you swear yesterday that 
 when she handed the paper back she 
 said, " Tell Mr Coningham I will ring 
 him up?" I think that was the morn- 
 ing. 
 
 She handed it back the day after you 
 got it ? Yes. 
 
 What day did you get it? The 
 Monday that you went to Brisbane. 
 
 Can you swear to that? I cannot. 
 
 Was it Tuesday, Monday, or Wed- 
 nesday? I could not tell you I have 
 not been studying and concocting 
 dates, Mr. Coningham. 
 
 Did Mr. Dill-Macky give you that ? 
 No 
 
 Did yo i tell anybody that Mr. Dill- 
 Macky gave it to you? - Never 
 
 You made the remark yesterday \\hen
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 I asked you why you didn't give the 
 document to me instead of to Proctor, 
 thai I had been robbing you so long 
 that you thought I was not a fit person 
 to be trusted. Can >ou remember 
 when that was ? When you were rob- 
 bing me ? 
 
 When did you get that document 
 from Mr. Montagu ? You will see it 
 on the receipt. 
 
 Did you pay Mr. Montagu anything 
 for the document ? I did. 
 
 Why did you pay him ? 
 
 Mr. \Vant : Can we have this. I 
 thought the Case would be closed on 
 Thursday. I have been cutting my 
 \\itnesses short. 
 
 Petitioner : I was not fit to have the 
 document, yet you were paying him 
 for a document to give me ? 1 gave an 
 undertaking to pay his costs. 
 
 What did you want it for? I will 
 tell you what I wanted it for. I had 
 been carrying on this conspiracy Case 
 so long, and my wife told me it was 
 wrong, and I thought I would get that 
 document 
 
 You were done with it on the 8th ? 
 I reported it next morning. 
 
 And yet on the nth you put a letter 
 in the matchbox to take to Mrs. 
 Coningham from me? Yes, and I 
 reported it next morning. 
 
 What was it that caused you to do 
 that ? My wife's pleadings. 
 
 Your wife's pleadings ! Did you kick 
 her when she gave you pleadings ? 
 
 His Honor : Oh, I say Mr. zoning- 
 ham. 
 
 Who gave you authority to go for 
 the document ? -You did And I re- 
 ported everything next morning. 
 
 What has the English solicitor to do 
 with you ? Has he been in the con- 
 spiracy too ? I refuse to answer your 
 questi n. Ask me something sensible. 
 
 You don't do these things with Eng- 
 lish solicitors for nothing. I want to 
 know what the game was. Didn't you 
 and the English solicitor help to forge 
 those documents? No. I. wish to give 
 my .answers straightforwardly, 'but 
 have I, your Honor, to answer ques-> 
 tions of that sort ? 
 
 His Hof or : That is a question he is 
 entitled to ask. 
 
 You say you : went down and got 
 three documents ? Was -that after you 
 were tired of th,e_ conspiracy ? How 
 long after? It was the Sunday you 
 
 had Mrs. B in my house. I was- 
 so disgusted with you. 
 
 Was that after you were tired and 
 sick of the conspiracy or your wife had 
 started to abuse you ? Yes, and it was 
 after you were after me with the 
 revolver. 
 
 It was after ? No ; it was before the 
 revolver business. 
 
 You said yesterday it was owing to 
 Mr Want showing me that document 
 in Court that I cleared out from your 
 place ? 
 
 Mr. Want : He did not say anything 
 of the sort. I said, "Was it after it 
 appeared in the evening papers about 
 Exton sending the registered letters 
 that he cleared out?" 
 
 Petitioner : After that appeared in 
 the evening papers ? Is that right? 
 I met you at lunch-time coming out of 
 Court. Then I met you on Tuesday. 
 That was the time when you wanted 
 me to commit perjury against Mrs. 
 Bonner. 
 
 Oh, I see. On Monday night what 
 time did I leave ? I cannot tell you 
 what time you left me. You left me in 
 the morning. You took part of your 
 things away and left a lot of rubbish 
 behind. 
 
 Never mind the rubbish. I did leave 
 a lot of rubbish behind, you are right. 
 Did I come back again ? You came 
 back at night, I think. 
 
 Where did you go? That is the 
 Monday night I took the letter down 
 to Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 Or the 353. ? You didn't give me a 
 penny. 
 
 From the time you left me to take 
 the note to Mrs. Coningham until you 
 saw me here talking to Mr. Russell on 
 Tuesday morning, you never saw me 
 or had any conversation with me ? 
 That is right. 
 
 On the Monday previous? Didn't 
 you swear absolutely that you saw me 
 on Monday night ? That night that I 
 took the matchbox, I said. 
 
 Now will you swear that you never 
 went on Tuesday night to Connachie's 
 and stopped in the dining-room till I 
 went up and saw my child ? I do not 
 think I did. 
 
 Petitioner : You swore yesterday you 
 never went with me on Tuesday night ?' 
 I tell you again that I do not think 
 I did. 
 
 Did I meet you in an hotel in 
 Oxford Street. You called into an
 
 293 
 
 hotel at the corner of Gurner Street 
 and Glenmore Road. From that you 
 walked up with me and remained 
 in the dining-room until I saw my 
 child ? That was the Monday night I 
 went in with you 
 
 You say you were sick and tired of 
 the conspiracy about the 6th ? Before 
 :hat. 
 
 When you gave these things to 
 Proctor, what was the object?- The 
 object was that you had been at my 
 place for a considerable time and done 
 me wrong, and I thought I would be 
 doing justice to hand them over. 
 
 Didn't you ask him to hand them 
 over to Slattery ? You can ask Proc- 
 tor if you like. 
 
 Then, if the conspiracy were so bad, 
 why didn't you stick to the letter that 
 I put into the matchbox ? You had a 
 revolver there to shoot me. 
 
 And I stood 100 yards away? You 
 walked slowly up to me within fifty 
 yards of the house. 
 
 Is it part of the plot to get hold of 
 any kind of hand-writing ? I do not 
 know what you mean. 
 
 Why didn't you keep that letter that 
 would condemn me ? I delivered it. 
 
 Why didn't you deliver the three, 
 then, you say you handed to Proctor? 
 
 I have already told you 
 
 You managed to keep three. Why 
 not keep the one that would connect 
 these things ? I have already an- 
 swered you. 
 
 You say you were afraid of my re- 
 volver. You know I had one under my 
 pillow for several months ? You lived 
 with me for several months and only 
 paid me 55. 
 
 Petitioner : You're a beauty ! 
 
 His Honor : I cannot allow that sort 
 of thing. 
 
 Petitioner : Did you say Mrs. Con- 
 ingham would ring me up on the tele- 
 phone at 9.45 a.m. at Taylor's office 
 about striking the Jury ? Yes. You 
 told me to tell her you would ring her 
 UD at 9, 45 a.m., and ask her to ring you 
 up at the same hour. 
 
 You have been to Miller's with me? 
 
 Yes, several times, and paid your 
 fare every time. 
 
 Petitioner : You're a liar. I beg your 
 Honor's pardon ; I could not help it. 
 (To witness) : You remember going up 
 with me the Sunday Mrs. Coningham 
 was there ? I do 
 
 Who went down in the vineyard ? 
 
 Yourself, Mrs. Coningham, Mr Gal- 
 lagher, and I. When we wal ed down 
 ,the vineyard you and Mrs. Goninpham 
 were practically together, and talking 
 about the Case. After returning from 
 the vineyard I went into a bedroom and 
 had a sleep. After that I went to 
 dinner. You came to dinner rathe'r 
 late, and sat next but one to Mrs. Con- 
 ingham. You came out of a bedroom. 
 I asked you to come to dinner. You 
 said, "I won't come in when those 
 people are there, as they might say 
 something." 
 
 When I came back from the bedroom 
 did I not come into the bedroom where 
 you were and have a yarn with you ? 
 No. I was not in the bedroom then. 
 I was lying on the grass outside. 
 
 Did you see me talking to Mrs. Con- 
 ingham whilst I was at Miller's? Yes, 
 down the vineyard for probably twenty 
 minutes. Then you and Mrs. Coning- 
 ham returned, and you tickled me 
 under the chin as I was lying down. 
 
 Did you see me go into the bedroom ? 
 No, I saw her come out of the bed- 
 room. She had some papers in her 
 hand and said, ' ' What a fool he is. He 
 has left these papers " One of them 
 was a type-written copy of the priest's 
 letter. 
 
 Do you remember sending a telegram 
 to Miller for me ? No. 
 
 I gave you sixpence ? I don't think 
 you had sixpence to give. 
 
 You say I mentioned about the con- 
 fession, and that if Mr. Want had only 
 noticed the alteration I was a ' ' gonner '? 
 You did say so You also said if he 
 only noticed the marks on the children 
 you would be a "gonner." We had 
 Vincent Francis Toningham with us at 
 that time, and whilst nursing him you 
 said, "If they only saw the mar^s on 
 this child are like those on the others I 
 would be a gonner ' " 
 
 You say I was nursing Vincent 
 Francis Coningham. Where was that ? 
 At Connachie's house. You had been 
 upstairs to see the child, for whom you 
 had some powders. 
 
 v ill you swear I was nursing the 
 child at Connachie's ? No, I think it 
 was at Jesmond Place. 
 - Do you know a man named Morris ? 
 I do. 
 
 Is he not a parasite of yours ?
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Mr. Want : Will you allow this, your 
 Honor ? 
 
 His Honor : I did not catch what was 
 said 
 
 Mr. Want : Petitioner asked witness 
 if Morris was a parasite of his. * 
 
 His Honor : I will not allow such a 
 thing 
 
 Petitioner : I apologise, your Honor. 
 
 To witness : Was it after March 8th 
 that you went to the Rev. Dill-Macky's 
 house ? I have not got the date. I 
 was only at the Rev. Dill-Macky's 
 twice. 
 
 After you say you were tired of the 
 conspiracy did you not go to the Rev. 
 Dill-Macky's and get the list ? They 
 gave it to me, and I sent it down to 
 Mrs. Coningham. 
 
 That was after you were tired of the 
 conspiracy, and were breaking up your 
 home? It was. 
 
 After you got a document from Mr. 
 Montagu, solicitor, did you go to Mrs. 
 Coningham as a friend ? I did not. 
 
 Did you go inside when you took the 
 message ? Yes. You asked me to 
 look after your affairs when you were 
 away. 
 
 Did you ever, during the whole time 
 that I was in your house, take anything 
 but a small note with money to my 
 wife ? I have taken about 20 to your 
 wife, and most of it was my money, I 
 gave it to her at the rate of about 2 a 
 time. 
 
 RE-EXAMINED BY MR. WANT. 
 
 You have been called all the names 
 under the sun. Did you get this 1-tter 
 card from Dalveen dated March 6th? 
 Yes That was when Mr. Coningham 
 was in Queensland. 
 
 Where is Dalveen ? Between Too- 
 woomba and WaHangara. 
 
 Is that Mr. Coningham's hand- 
 writing on the letter-card ? Yes, both 
 outside and inside. 
 
 Mr. Want : Now we will see whether 
 you are the ruffian the Petitioner says 
 you are. The letter is as follows : 
 "Wednesday morning, 6th March 
 Dear Jim, I was disappointed at not 
 seeing ' Zero,' I suppose he was afraid 
 to meet me in the daylight. I am 
 writing this in the train, which makes 
 it very awkward I hope yon had some 
 success with the woman." Who is the 
 woman ? 
 
 Witness : He left a subpoena to serve 
 upon a certain woman. 
 
 Was that a lad\ he went anywhere 
 wi h ? - He used to meet her in a wine- 
 shopin Oxford Street. 
 
 W hat was the success he refers to ? 
 
 I was to get the w^man to swear some- 
 thing against Dr. O'Haran. I was to get 
 a declaration from her. 
 
 How were you to get it? -He told 
 me to take her into a room, and if I 
 possibly could to force a declaration 
 out of her. 
 
 In what room? In a room in a 
 house in Riley Street. He showed me 
 the place to take her into. It was a 
 brothel. 
 
 Did you succeed ? No. 
 
 Did you subpoena her? No. 
 
 Look at that telegram. You were 
 asked if you sent a telegram to Mr. 
 Miller. Did you send that ? Never. 
 (The telegram referred to will be found 
 on page 106.) 
 
 Mr. Want : I would like the Jury to 
 see the address on the letter-card sent 
 by the Petitioner fr m Dalveen, and 
 the signature on this telegram to Mr. 
 Miller. 
 
 The two documents were handed to 
 the Jury, and examined by them. 
 
 Mr. Want : I tender this letter-card 
 beginning " Dear Jim." 
 
 JOHN GALLAGHER GIVES EVIDENCE. 
 
 
 John Gallagher, a delivery clerk, in 
 the post-office, Sydney, sw< rn and 
 examined by Mr. Want, said he knew 
 the Petitioner for six months, and four 
 years as a sportsman. He as a con- 
 tinual caller at the Post Office for 
 letters in his own name, and also " V. 
 
 Arnold." The latest he called for 
 letters was about the beginning of 
 January this year. At that time he 
 was attending the window "A to F ;" 
 when a man \* as absent for some time. 
 He could only distinctly .remember 
 delivering one letter to him.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 2Q5 
 
 ^7 ^^f 
 
 /bf* coX/X^^e 
 
 [Written in Train to Brisbane, and posted at Dalveen. Queensland.]
 
 296 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY PETITIONER. 
 
 What religion are you? A Catholic. 
 
 Can you remember when I first 
 called for letters ? About f six months 
 ago. You called the most times during 
 the latter part of December and the 
 commencement of January this year. 
 Have you any note of mine? Yes, 
 I put a card of yours into a box inform- 
 ing the man who followed me that no 
 letters addressed to you were to be 
 given to any one but you. I remember 
 one particular occasion I had a con- 
 versation with you when you said, " I 
 wonder they are not wearing pieces of 
 
 me on their watch-chains." (Laugh- 
 ter.) You also remarked that you 
 were going to wear a yellow coat on 
 March iyth. (Laughter.) 
 
 Can you remember other people 
 getting letters under different names ? 
 Yes, if the Department wanted the 
 information. 
 
 Did I not call and present a slip to 
 you asking for the delivery of a letter 
 addressed to "A. Wilson" from 
 Queensland ? I swear you never 
 handed me a slip. 
 
 ARTHUR WALPOLE GIVES EVIDENCE. 
 
 Arthur Walpole, a delivery clerk at 
 the General Post Office, sworn and 
 examined by Mr. Want, said he was 
 an adherent of the Church of England, 
 and first knew he would be called in 
 this Case at 11.30 a.m. on the previous 
 day. He knew Mr. Coningham by 
 
 sight and name for five years. Wit- 
 ness attended at the delivery window 
 " A to E." Mr. Coningham called for 
 letters from October zyth last year to 
 early in January this year. He called 
 pretty well every day for letters ad- 
 dressed to " V. Arnold." 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY PETITIONER. 
 
 Have you delivered letters to me 
 under the name of " Arnold" ? Not to 
 my recollection. 
 
 Are you present at every delivery ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did you see any letters addressed to 
 " V. Arnold"? No, I saw a telegram 
 addressed to "V.Arnold." I did not 
 deliver it. 
 
 Have you delivered letters addressed 
 " Arnold" to other people? Yes. 
 
 Do you think you could be mistaken 
 in me? No. 
 
 Mr. Want: Can you remember when 
 you saw the telegram ? - It was since 
 last October. 
 
 Mr, Want : Would your Honor give 
 
 the witness an order to produce the 
 document? 
 
 His Honor : Is it in your Depart- 
 ment ? 
 
 Witness : No. Mr. Powell is the 
 custodian of telegrams. 
 
 Hi? Honor (to Mr. Want) : What 
 order can I give ? 
 
 Mr. Want : You can convey to Mr. 
 Powell that you sanction his bringing 
 up any telegrams addressed as witness 
 stated. 
 
 His Honor : I have no objection in 
 saying that. (To witness) : Say to Mr. 
 Powell I would be glad if he would 
 bring up any telegrams he can find. 
 
 Witness said he would do so, and left 
 the Court. 
 
 REV. PETER TREACY ENTERS THE BOX. 
 
 Peter Treacy, a priest, in charge at 
 N\ ngan, sworn and examined bv Mr. 
 Want, said he saw an account in the 
 trial of the laying of the foundation- 
 stone of a foundling hospital ai Waiiara. 
 He was in Sydney on the day the cere- 
 mony took place. 
 
 Were you present at the ceremony ? 
 Yes. Before the ceremony I was at 
 St. Mary's. Before dinner I celebrated 
 Mass in the morning and remained about 
 the Church until dinner-time, at i 
 o'clock. We had dinner in. the Pres- 
 byter/. Cardinal Moran and Dr. 
 
 O'Haran and other priests were pre- 
 sent. Dr. O'Haran was at the head of 
 the table, carving, and presided at the 
 table. 
 
 What did the Cardinal and Dr. 
 O'Haran do after dinner ? About ten 
 minutes past 2 p.m. they left in a car- 
 riage 
 
 Was Dr. O'Haran out of your sight 
 from the time you sat down to dinner 
 and the time he left with Cardinal 
 Moran in the carriage ? Practically 
 speaking he was never out of my sight, 
 I was speaking-with Dr. O'Haran in his
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. . 
 
 297 
 
 room after dinner, and afterwards when 
 he entered the carriage to drive away 
 uith the Cardinal. 
 
 Was there any lady about the place 
 that day? I never saw one There 
 might have been one, but I never saw 
 one. I afterwards went to Waitara, 
 via the North Shore ferry and train. 
 I saw from the train Cardinal Moran 
 being escorted by a cavalcade of horse- 
 men. I arrived at Waitara before Car- 
 dinal Moran and Dr. O'Haran. I saw 
 
 Dr. O'Haran there all day, and when 
 I left he was still there with Cardinal 
 Moran. 
 
 Witness would swear the dinner 
 never started at twenty minutes to i. 
 He could safely say it was not twenty 
 minutes to i. As far as his knowledge, 
 went it was the usual hour, i o'clock. 
 
 Petitioner: You say you don't think 
 he was out of your sight? I said to the 
 best of my knowledge he was not two 
 minutes out of my sight. 
 
 CLOSE OF CO-RESPONDENT'S CASE. 
 
 Mr. Want said there was a witness 
 whom he had called, Mrs. Abraham, 
 but she had gone to Melbourne to visit 
 a sick sister. 
 
 Pe'irioner : I am satisfied, your 
 Honor 
 
 Mr Want : I am trying to shorten 
 the Case. 
 
 Petitioner : Aren't you going to call 
 Miller and a few others. 
 
 Mr. Want: You can call him. We 
 have gone far enough into your camp. 
 Well, your Honor, subject to the pro- 
 duction of a telegram, that will be my 
 Case. 
 
 MRS. BONNER IS CALLED. 
 
 Petitioner called Mrs. Bonner. 
 
 The witness stated her name was 
 Mary Bonner. 
 
 Petitioner : Do you know the Re- 
 spondent ? 
 
 Mr Want : We are not going to be 
 kept here with any evidence except it 
 is in reply or contradiction Mr. Con- 
 ingham has chosen to ask a number of 
 questions of Dr. O'Haran, and he has 
 denied them. This is, I presume, 
 another opportunity of trying to throw 
 mud. I suppose we will hear some 
 more of it as well. But he is bound to 
 take Dr O'Haran's answers to ques- 
 tions immaterial to the issue This 
 being immaterial, I object toil, to stop 
 him throwing mud. 
 
 Petitioner asked his Honor to look at 
 Roscoe's " Nisi Prius Evidence." He 
 had asked the Co-respondent a number 
 of specific questions in connection with 
 this lady (the witness), and he had 
 given denials. 
 
 His Honor: You also asked him a 
 number of questions about people in 
 Rome. 
 
 Petitioner: I particularly rested on 
 this lady's evidence. 
 
 His Honor : It is evidence of a simi- 
 lar character. 
 
 Petitioner : I asked him if he had 
 ever paid for the support of an illegiti- 
 mate child. I presume this is material 
 in this Case. 
 
 His Honor : I do not think so. 
 
 The Petitioner fought hard for the admission of Mrs. Bonner'.s 
 evidence, basing his argument on Roscoe's " Nisi Prius" treatise, 
 but the Judge blocked him on the points raised as being irrelevant. 
 
 His Honor : Can you cite any Case to 
 show that by charging another offence 
 of a similar kind you raise a probability 
 that the offence now charged has been 
 committed. This is what it amounts 
 to. You say you prove offence A. Then 
 you state the probability that because 
 offence >A. has been committed offence 
 B has: also been committed. If you 
 knew anything about the rules of evi- 
 dence you would see that this is not 
 evidence. Otherwise you migh 1 have 
 500 different charges brought in before 
 the Jury to prove that a particular one 
 
 had been committed. A Case of that 
 kind might last for tw nty years. At 
 all events, there is the Law. 
 
 Petitioner : I asked in closing my 
 Case if I had evidence in contradiction 
 of certain specific questions that 1 put 
 to the Co-respondent 
 
 His Honor: If you asked a question 
 relevant to the Case that is being tried, 
 then you might call evidence in regard 
 to it. If you asked questions that are 
 not material to the issues to be tried 
 you are bound to take the answers that 
 are given.
 
 298 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Petitioner : Then why does the rule 
 read as it does ? 
 
 His Honor : A general rule of that 
 
 Why cannot I rake up his life ? I am 
 bringing one or two to rake up his life 
 for fifteen years. He swore he was 
 
 kind cannot be laid down You must pure, and I can bring absolute proof 
 
 have illustrations. That is a text writ- 
 ten for the convenience of practitioners, 
 and the writer embodies the law as 
 clearly as he can. It is not binding. 
 . . . . If you asked the Co-respon- 
 dent here whether he did not commit a 
 murder on June 2gth, do you mean to 
 say that the Court would have to try 
 the issue as to whether he committed a 
 murder on that day or any other ? You 
 could say if he did commit a murder 
 that the Jury could not believe him. 
 You could not possibly try that charge. 
 If you asked him if he committed a 
 murder you could not in reply in evi- 
 dence prove that some murder had 
 been committed. So you might go 
 through the whole of the Ten Com- 
 mandments in the same way. 
 
 Petitioner : Might I not be allowed 
 to bring in evidence in reply that will 
 contradict his statement and tend to 
 show that he has been used to this sort 
 of thing. 
 
 His Honor : Certainly not. 
 
 Petitioner: II I can bring living wit- 
 nesses to prove that he has done that ! 
 If I can bring absolute proof that he 
 
 Mr. Want : Yori can do nothing of 
 the kind. You say you can. 
 
 His Honor: It is mere assertion. It 
 is no use arguing this matter. You can 
 take the matter before the Full Court, 
 and if you are dissatisfied with that you. 
 can take it to the Privy Council. But 
 I rule that you cannot go into evidence 
 of this kind, and you must take the an- 
 swers of the Co-respondent for better 
 or for worse. 
 
 Petitioner: And I can ask no ques- 
 tions ? 
 
 His Honor: I am not going to rule 
 that way. I will deal with each ques- 
 tion, and I will deal with it as it arises 
 and with each witness. 1 rule you can- 
 not bring this witness to contradict the 
 Co-respondent on that part of his evi- 
 dence 
 
 Petitioner : Well, I do not under- 
 stand what "witness in reply" means. 
 I could not get it in evidence in my 
 examination-in-chief. When I have 
 evidence that way I thought it was 
 right for the Jury to know these things 
 to see 
 
 His Honor : I cannot allow a reply 
 to my decision. On this point I have 
 ruled, and there is an end of it. 
 
 has carried it on for years ! He raked 
 up my wife's history for fifteen years. 
 
 [The Jud^e, the Senior Counsel for the Defence, and the 
 Petitioner continued an obstinate discussion about the admission of 
 Mrs. Honner's evidence, but with fruitless results a; far as 
 Coningham was concerned. " Mrs. B." was terribly anxious to 
 figure as a witness, but had to leave the box and nurse her 
 disappointment in the obscurity of non-publicity.] 
 
 THE RESPONDENT RE-CALLED. 
 
 The Respondent was recalled and further examined by the 
 Petitioner. 
 
 Petitioner : Have you been over to 
 St. Mary's Cathedral ? Yes. 
 
 Did you see the lane between the 
 Cathedral and the Hall?- Yes. 
 
 Is there any difference in the place 
 now and when you were going there ? 
 There is a great difference. 
 
 What is the difference ? I first saw 
 it passing on the cable-tram. It has 
 been raised. There are about ten 
 steps more than there were in 1898. 
 
 Was the plan that was put in an 
 1898 plan ? I was told it was an 1898 
 plan. 
 
 There was a rumour about seventeen 
 steps did you ever hear that ? Yes, 
 in Court. 
 
 Who spoke about it ? Dr. O'Haran, 
 and I read in the paper, Mr. Barr. 
 
 At the last trial ? I only remember 
 Dr. O'Haran saying there were seven- 
 teen. The little boy said six. 
 
 Mr. Want: The little boy did not 
 say six. You are very willing to give 
 evidence. 
 
 Respondent : Yes, I am when I am 
 contradicted, because I know.
 
 THE SIZCOXI) TRIAL. 
 
 299- 
 
 The Petitioner then took the Respondent all over the plan of 
 the Cathedral, and up and down every flight of steps in the 
 building. 
 
 His Honor : The Jury has been over 
 the place, and it has been pointed out 
 by Mr. Barr. If you have any plans 
 to throw light on the subject, and Mr. 
 Want has no objection 
 
 Mr. Want : None whatever. 
 
 Respondent : There is the flight of 
 steps from the Cathedral to the path- 
 way. Probably they counted that 
 flight, but I never went down them. 
 I went down the Presbyter}- steps. 
 
 That is the only part you went by ? 
 I went in the Church and out the 
 porch-door. That is the only part I 
 went by 
 
 Have you got a letter from Bowling 
 and Taylor? Yes. 
 
 Will you kindly produce it to me ? 
 
 Respondent : There is a Jury List I 
 got handed to me: 
 
 Petitioner: Well, the Jury List as 
 well. Your Honor, I object to the 
 Jury seeing this List. 
 
 His Honor : Oh, certainly. 
 
 Mr. War.t : It would be very unsatis- 
 factory t< ' show it to them. It is a 
 great pity people cannot mind their 
 own business. 
 
 Petitioner: This is a letter dated 
 December 6, 1900. It is from Dowling 
 and Taylor, solicitors : " To Mrs. 
 Coningham. 52 Gurner Street, Pad- 
 dington Dear Madam, Yours of 
 yesterday to our Mr. Taylor to hand. 
 We do not think we can be of any 
 assistance at present, but should you 
 require advice later on we will be glad 
 to see you any time you may call." 
 Mr. Dowling, in his evidence, said 
 that neither himself nor his partner 
 had ever offered at any time to do 
 anything for Mrs. Coningham. She 
 consulted them as to the custody of 
 her children. He said they took her 
 to a divorce barrister and agreed not 
 to have anything to do with the 
 Case. " Mr. Taylor never advised and 
 never wrote a letter saying he would 
 do anything she liked in connection 
 with the Case." Then this letter comes. 
 
 Mr. Want : What is the date of 
 that? 
 
 Petitioner : Monday, December 3rd. 
 
 Mr. Want : That is the day the last 
 trial commenced. It was after this the 
 
 witness came into Court during the 
 time the trial was on. 
 
 Petitioner: He says here Mr. Taylrr 
 never advised her. On the 6th this 
 letter comes stating he would be glad 
 to see her at any time. 
 
 His Honor : What inference do you 
 draw from that ? What has Mr. 
 Dowling's evidence got to do with the 
 Case ? He came here to give evidence 
 because he thought his firm would be 
 dragged into the Case in an unsatis- 
 factory way. 
 
 Petitioner (to witness) : Will you 
 produce the child in court, Vincent 
 Francis ? 
 
 Respondent: Yes, certainly, if it is 
 necessary. 
 
 Mr. Want : Willingly, too. 
 
 Respondent : If my word is doubted 
 I will. 
 
 His Honor : Do you wish to put it 
 in as an "exhibit ?" (Laughter.) 
 
 Petitioner: Yes, and have it marked 
 for identification. 
 
 Petitioner (handing a document to 
 the Respondent) : Kindly look at that 
 document. 
 
 Mr. Want : Mr. Coningham has got 
 a document from this lady, and I want 
 to see it. 
 
 Not that one (to Petitioner, who was 
 handing him a paper), the other one. 
 
 Petitioner: I have not put the other 
 one in. I will give it to the Jury. It 
 might appear that I had something to 
 do with striking the names of the pub- 
 licans off the Jury. 
 
 Mr. Want : Exton did not say you. 
 He said Dill-Macky told him to strike 
 off the names of the publicans. 
 
 Have you ever before seen the docu- 
 ment I have handed to you ? No. I 
 never sign "Alice S." like that. It 
 does not say who it is, or anything 
 else. 
 
 Did you ever make a statement in 
 the office of Mr. Montagu, solicitor ? 
 Yes. I told him a lot of things and he 
 wrote them down. 
 
 His Honor to Petitioner: We cannot 
 have conversations between Mrs. Con- 
 ingham and a solicitor behind the back, 
 of the Co-respondent.
 
 300 
 
 THK CONINGHA.M CASE. 
 
 Petitioner : She is speaking with re- 
 ference to a conversation she had with 
 Exton in connection with this docu- 
 ment. It is the document I questioned 
 Exton about yesterday. 
 
 His Honor : You can ask her if that 
 is in her hand-writing. 
 
 Petitioner : You distinctly state that 
 it is not your hand-writing? It is very 
 like my hand-writing. I mean the sig- 
 nature, but I never write " Alice S." 
 
 The Respondent, in answer to Peti- 
 -tioner, denied that she was while at 
 Fairfield carried to bed drunk at 2 
 o'clock in the morning. She never met 
 Petitioner just before or since the last 
 -trial up at Mr. Abigail's house. She 
 had never been out at that time of night 
 before the last trial. She had babies to 
 mind. She remembered Exton calling 
 at her place on Tuesday week, the 
 second day of this trial. She was sit- 
 ting in the dining-room with Mr. and 
 Mrs. Connachie, and Petitioner went 
 upstairs to see the children. 
 
 Mr. Want : This is not evidence, 
 your Honor. I did not ask a question 
 about Tuesday night ; I asked about 
 Monday night. 
 
 Petitioner : Was there anything the 
 matter with Exton ? 
 
 Mr. Want : Don't answer that ques- 
 tion. I object. 
 
 Petitioner : Talk about mud-throw- 
 ing. I cannot get any mud. It is all 
 liquid. 
 
 Mr. Want : You have exhausted your 
 supply. 
 
 Petitioner: I have got on to bricks 
 now. To witness : Have I, in the pre- 
 sence of Mr. and Mrs. Connachie, 
 Exton, or anyone else, had a conversa- 
 tion with you about this or the last 
 Case ? Not in your company . I have 
 spoken about it in Mr. Exton's com- 
 pany. She had never gone upstairs 
 with Coningham. 
 
 Was I in your bedroom whilst you 
 
 were up at Miller's ? No, you were not. 
 You went into Mr. Miller's room and 
 slept there all the afternoon. I had 
 the nursegirl with me in my bedroom, 
 and the balcony windows were open all 
 dav long. 
 
 Talk about mud-throwing. Did you 
 give Exton three letters last Sunday 
 week to deliver to me? No; not one. 
 
 Has he ever gone to your house in- 
 toxicated ? 
 
 Mr. Want : What have we to do 
 with this ? He has asked Exton, and 
 must accept his answer. 
 
 Did you read Mrs. Marquet's evi- 
 dence? Yes 
 
 You see where she .said you told her 
 about a tatoo-mark upon the body of 
 the Co-respondent ? There is not a 
 word of truth in that. 
 
 Did you confide in her about the 
 Arnold letters? The evening I got 
 them I had not finished reading them 
 when I went to the dining-room. I 
 made the remark to some persons there 
 that I had received some letters, but 
 did not know from whom they came. 
 'Next morning I asked Mrs. Marquet 
 if my letters and money were on the 
 chest-of-drawers, or if she had put 
 them away. She said the money was 
 in the drawers, but she could not see 
 the letters. She then told me who 
 had been in the room. I said it did 
 not matter very much, as I did not 
 know from whom they came, but at the 
 same time I was annoyed at losing 
 them. 
 
 Was Mrs. Marquet the only one at 
 the relief of "Burrilda?" Her evi- 
 dence about that occasion is distinctly 
 false. It took place the night after she 
 said it took place. They were cooking 
 all day for it. The whole statement is 
 false. 
 
 It is said you were carried to bed 
 drunk at 2 o'clock in the morning ? 
 They had to assist me to bed at 10 
 o'clock at night, because I was taken 
 ill in the dining-room. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. WANT. 
 
 You now think it an awkward thing 
 about the seventeen steps at the Cathe- 
 dral? 
 
 Witness : No. I do not. 
 
 How came you to ask Mr. Coning- 
 harn to make an application that you 
 .should be allowed to have a look at the 
 place again the other day? I did not 
 ask him to make the application. 
 
 What sort of steps did you swear 
 they were at the last trial? I cannot 
 remember. 
 
 What were the steps ? I think they 
 were wooden ones. 
 
 Will you swear they were not stone ? 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 You swore that thie whole elevation
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 301 
 
 had been altered to the height of ten 
 steps? -Yes. 
 
 Would you be astonished to hear 
 that an old pillar of the Church is 
 there, and that the level can be seen ? 
 I know that the porch is half covered 
 up 
 
 Will you swear the Jury has not 
 een the pillar? I don't know any- 
 thing about the pillar. 
 
 Did you hear Mr. Barr, the Clerk of 
 Works at the Cathedral, give evidence 
 at the last trial and at this ? Yes, and 
 he was a little more positive this 
 time. 
 
 Mr. Want : He swore there were 
 seventeen steps. 
 
 Witness : And I swear that is not 
 true. I know the place well. 
 
 How do you know it well ? I went 
 frequently into the Cardinal's Hall 
 after that. 
 
 When ? In 1898 and afterwards. 
 
 You heard him swear there were nine 
 wooden steps and a landing. Is that 
 true ? I don't remember nine wooden 
 steps. In my opinion it is not true. 
 
 Petitioner called Mr. Connachie, but 
 there was no answer to his name. 
 
 SUPERINTENDENT WILLMAf CAMPHIN GIVES EVIDENCE. 
 
 William Camphin, Superintendent of 
 Police, in answer to Petitioner, said he 
 had received a notice to produce cer- 
 tain papers. 
 
 Petitioner : Have you them ? No. 
 
 Have you any books, papers, or let- 
 ters in your possession relating to this 
 Case? None whatever. 
 
 Did you have some in your posses 
 sion ? No. 
 
 Was one handed to you? Yes. 
 
 Did you take a note of it ? - No. 
 
 When a letter or a threatening note 
 is given to you what do you do ? It 
 -was not given to me as if to the Police. 
 
 Can you remember when it was given 
 io you ? About July last year. 
 
 Did you not attend to it ? No. 
 
 You read the document ? Well, not 
 very attentively. 
 
 Whohandedit to you? Dr.O'Haran. 
 
 In the presence of anyone? Mr. 
 .Slattery. 
 
 Any remarks? Well, I made are- 
 mark . 
 
 And in your professional duty did you 
 
 not attend to it ? No. I did not con- 
 sider it a Police matter. It was simply 
 as a private friend of Dr. O'Haran that 
 I advised him. 
 
 You did not get it in your profes- 
 sional capacity ? I did not consider it 
 so. 
 
 Did you hand it to him back? Yes, 
 at the time. 
 
 How many did he hand you ? One 
 on one occasion, and one on another 
 occasion. 
 
 You do not know what they were 
 like ? One, I know what it was like ; 
 the other I was going to read, but when 
 I came to a certain passage I would 
 not read any further. 
 
 Did you see by whom it was signed ? 
 It bore the name of Coningham. 
 
 He did not come to you and hand it 
 to you professionally ? I think not. 
 
 Mr. Want : He came to you as the 
 Head of the Police ? He knew me 
 personally. 
 
 You handed the letters back to him 
 and gave him some advice ? Yes. 
 
 ALICE SLEEMAN ENTERS THE BOX. 
 
 Alice Sleeman stated she was em- 
 ployed by Mrs. Coningham as nurse- 
 girl, and was at Fairfield whilst Mrs. 
 Coningham was ill She was ill for a 
 day. 
 
 Petitioner : Was she intoxicated? 
 No, she appeared to be ill all day. 
 
 Did she leave afterwards ? -She left 
 on Saturday. She was ill on Wednes- 
 day. 
 
 What time did you go to bed on 
 Wednesday night ? I do not know. I 
 think it was about 9 o'clock. 
 
 Were any preparations made that 
 day ? Yes. we were going to have a 
 spree there. 
 
 Was that the night she was ill ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Did Mrs. Coningham go to bed early 
 or late that night ? She went to bed 
 early. 
 
 Can you remember the night before 
 that was any preparation made for a. 
 spree ? They were going to sit up and 
 have wine that night. 
 
 What night ? On the Tuesday night. 
 
 Did you see Mrs. Coningham that 
 night at all ? Not that I remember. 
 
 Was she very ill ? Yes, she was very 
 ill. 
 
 Did she stay up till i o'clock that
 
 302 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASK. 
 
 night ? I do not know. I was in bed. 
 Did she have an appearance of liquor 
 about her when you saw her that day ? 
 I do not know what the appearance 
 of liquor is like. 
 
 Was she quite well the day before ? 
 I think so. 
 
 Did she tell anyone she had lost any 
 thing ? Yes. 
 
 Mr. Want objected to the witness 
 stating what she had been told. 
 
 His Honor : I have told you a dozen; 
 times you cannot have evidence like 
 that. It is something stated behind 
 the back of the Co-respondent. 
 
 Do you know a man named Exton ? 
 Yes. 
 
 Have you seen him repeatedly ? I 
 saw him that Sunday. 
 
 Was I with him ? You came up witli 
 him. 
 
 THE WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINED. 
 
 Alice Sleeman was cross-examined 
 by Mr. Want. 
 
 Mr. Want : You said they were going 
 to keep this up on the Tuesday, and 
 they did not ? I do not know what they 
 were going to do, but they did keep it 
 tip on the Tuesday. 
 
 Didn't you say just now they were 
 going to keep it up on the Tuesday ? 
 I say they had wine on the Tuesday. 
 
 Did they keep it up the next night ? 
 Yes. 
 
 That is the night they had the spree 
 on? They had the spree on Wednes- 
 day night. 
 
 How were these children dressed 
 when he (Petitioner) came up to see 
 them ? I did not notice what they had 
 on 
 
 How did they know what you were 
 going to prove? I. do not know. 
 
 They had no idea what you were 
 going to say ? No. 
 
 How much wages do you get ? 6s. a 
 week . 
 
 Are you paid regularly ? Yes. 
 
 When are you paid ? Every Tuesday 
 night. 
 
 Did you go down with Mrs. Coning- 
 ham from there ? Yes 
 
 On Thursday she was sick ? I said 
 on Wednesday she was sick. 
 
 Then on Thursday, Friday, and 
 Saturday, she was all right ? Yes. 
 
 And on Saturday she came down to- 
 town ? Yes. 
 
 Where did you drive her to ? I do- 
 not remember the name of the place 
 
 Did you see what became of them 
 when they went into the vineyard ? 
 They were picking grapes. 
 
 Who were picking grapes Mr. and 
 Mrs. Coningham, Mr. Exton, and Mr. 
 Gallagher ? Yes. 
 
 EVIDENCE OF DR. F. W. MARSHALL. 
 
 Dr. Frederick Marshall stated, in 
 answer to Petitioner, that he remem- 
 bered attending him for an accident 
 during the middle of January, 1899. 
 
 Petitioner : What was the accident ? 
 A severe blow from a cricket-ball 
 which interrupted several veins. 
 
 What would be the result of the 
 blow? It would produce inflamma- 
 tion. The parts were very much 
 swollen. 
 
 Witness replied that the injury 
 would have a deterrent effect for a 
 length of time. 
 
 Did I see you again later ? Yes, 
 about four weeks afterwards, so far as 
 I can remember. 
 
 Did you examine me then ? Yes ; 
 you were in a hurry. So was I. 
 
 Petitioner further examined the wit- 
 
 ness as to the length of time that he 
 would be affected by the injury. 
 
 Petitioner: Would the blow leave 
 any marks'? Yes, varicose veins. The 
 marks you have yet. They are still 
 there. 
 
 Witness stated the effects of the 
 injury might remain in full force for 
 four weeks or three months, or it 
 might be six months. 
 
 Was mine of a severe nature ? Yes. 
 You had great pain. 
 
 Wlr-n was that? At the latter end 
 of January. 
 
 Petitioner : The witness is a pro- 
 fessional man, and remarks were made 
 by Exton whilst giving evidence which 
 might be wrongly construed by the- 
 public. Exton said that Dr. Marshall 
 was several times to see Mrs. Coning- 
 ham.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 303 
 
 Mr. Want : Mr. Exton said that he 
 had been at Mr. Connachie's several 
 times, and had seen Dr. Marshall 
 there. 
 
 Petitioner : What was the nature of 
 your calls ? To sae one of the children , 
 who was suffering from malignant 
 measles. 
 
 That was the only time you saw me 
 there ? You took me there twice to 
 see the children. 
 
 Was there any conversation at Con- 
 nachie's about the Case? Not while I 
 was there. You have been to me about 
 prescriptions. 
 
 Mr. Want : Have Mr. and Mrs. Con- 
 ingham been constant visitors to your 
 place ? No ; Mr. Coningham has been 
 visiting me. 
 
 How often ? He has called on me 
 since the last trial on several occasions. 
 He called last Sunday. 
 
 Was he using your bicycle ? Yes, 
 on several occasions. 
 
 You are pretty friendly ? Not pre'ty 
 friendly. Anyone can come and get 
 my " bike " (Laughter) as long as 
 they are not too heavy and will not 
 knock it about. (Laughter.) 
 
 HARRY CONNACHIE ENTERS THE BOX. 
 
 Harry Connachie. sworn and ex- 
 amined by the Petitioner, said he had 
 been connected with the Joint Stock 
 Bank for eighteen years, mostly as a 
 Branch Manager. Mrs. Coningham 
 was staying at his place. On the loth 
 March, when he got back to his house 
 from the country at 8 p.m., Mr. Exton 
 called. He did not give Exton any- 
 thing, nor did he receive anything 
 from him. He did not think Mrs. 
 Coningham saw him. On the follow- 
 ing night (Monday) Mr. Exton called, 
 and offered him a wax vesta matchbox. 
 
 He said there was a letter in it for Mrs. 
 Coningham. Witness refused to take 
 it. He thought Exton took it away 
 again. . . . He remembered the 
 Tuesday night. Petitioner came with 
 Mr. Exton He did not see Exton. 
 3t a letter that night. Petitioner did 
 not see Mrs. Coningham that night. 
 He went upstairs to the children's 
 bedroom. He did not recollect speak- 
 ing about this or the last Case to 
 Petitioner or to Mrs. Coningham or to 
 Exton. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR WANT. 
 
 Mr. Exton brought to the house 
 envelopes which he said contained 
 money for Mrs. Coningham. He did 
 it about half a dozen times before 
 witness went away for a month in 
 January. He was now a clerk on the 
 Clarence River. 
 
 When did you go to the Clarence ? 
 About December i5th. 
 
 So you don't know what took place 
 in your house before that ? No. 
 
 When did you leave the Bank ? In 
 the beginning of September. 
 
 Will you swear that when you came 
 back once you did not find Mr. and 
 
 Mrs. Coningham in your house to- 
 gether ? They were in the house, but 
 were not together. 
 
 When was that ? On January gth. 
 I had started to go to the Clarence, 
 but when I got down to the wharf I 
 turned back and came home. 
 
 Did you not complain about him 
 being there? Not then. I did so on 
 a previous occasion. I said I did not 
 think it was judicious for him to come 
 to my house. 
 
 Did you not say it was ' ' dangerous?" 
 No; I think I said it was not "ju- 
 dicious." 
 
 HORACE NORTH BROOK IN THE BOX. 
 
 Horace North Brook, sworn and 
 examined by the Petitioner, said he 
 was teller at the Bank of Australasia, 
 and had been there fourteen years. 
 He had considerable expsrience in 
 hand-writing. 
 
 Petitioner placed before the witness 
 a letter from Mrs. Coningham to Miss 
 Shiel, and the letter in female hand- 
 
 U 
 
 writing containing the words, " If you 
 deny the Arnold letter so will I," and 
 asked if they were written by the same 
 person. 
 
 Witness : No ; they were not. 
 
 Petitioner laid before the witness a 
 document signed by J. Exton, and ad- 
 mitted by him, also a telegram signed 
 by J. Exton, but repudiated by him.
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Witness was asked if they were signed 
 by the same person. 
 
 Witness : The signatures are alike, 
 but one might be a copy. 
 
 In connection with signatures, is it 
 possible for an expert penman to copy 
 
 a whole documnt ? Yes ; he would 
 have to be an expert penman 
 
 Have you heard of a system bv which 
 it can be done ? - 1 have heard of it 
 being done by the medium of glass and 
 other things. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. WANT. 
 
 Can you not see a similarity in the 
 t's" in the two documents ? 
 
 Witness : No, I do not. 
 
 Mr. Want showed a number of docu- 
 ments to the witness, who said that the 
 capital " I's" in them were alike. 
 
 Petitioner : If those two documents 
 were brought into the Bank would you 
 class them as being by the same person? 
 
 Witness : Yes. 
 
 A Juryman : Before the expert leaves 
 the box I would like his opinion as to 
 the alleged erasure in the confession. 
 
 The witness was handed the docu- 
 ment and examined it at som j length. 
 He said he did not think th>re had been 
 an erasure with a knife. There might 
 have been a drop of water on the paper, 
 ami in wiping it off it would alter the 
 surface of the paper. 
 
 Mr. Want : Would a drop of water 
 alter the " n" of " nd " to " rd," and 
 show a mark under the "3" in "3rd 
 July ?" No. 
 
 Has not one of the strokes of the 
 " n" in " nd" been altered to make it 
 " rd '?" I can see a mark of some sort. 
 
 Petitioner: Supposing there had been 
 an ink-mark on the paper when it was 
 written on, would the writing over the 
 ink-mark show a lighter ink ? Yes. 
 
 A Juryman : If a drop of ink falls on 
 a piece of paper, and it is wiped away, 
 will that alter the surface of the paper. 
 
 Witness : Yes. 
 
 Petitioner: Would a tear do it? 
 Yes. 
 
 Petitioner : There must have been 
 tears when that paper was written. 
 
 ARTHUR LLOYD THOMAS IN THE BOX. 
 
 Artnur Lloyd Thomas, sworn and 
 examined by the Petitioner, said he 
 was in the employ of the City Bank. 
 He had had for y-seven years' banking 
 experience, and had a lot of experience 
 in various hand-writings. 
 
 Witness was shown the same docu- 
 ments that were placed before the pre- 
 vious witness, namely, a letter from 
 Mrs. Coningham to Miss Shiel, and 
 the letter in female hand-writing con- 
 taining the words "If you deny the 
 Arnold letters, so will I." 
 
 Petitioner : Are those two documents 
 written by the same person ? I don't 
 think they are at all similar. 
 
 Would you pass them through the 
 Bank as from the same writer ? No. 
 
 Witness was then shown a document 
 signed J. Exton, and admitted by him, 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED 
 
 Counsel for the Co-respondent then 
 laid several written documents before 
 the witness, and questioned him as to 
 the peculiarities of various letters and 
 figures in them. 
 
 Have you discussed these letters 
 with the Petitioner ? No; I never 
 knew him until yesterday. 
 
 Were you not walking down the 
 street with him ? No. 
 
 and a telegram signed J. Exton, which 
 that person repudiated 
 
 Petitioner : Were both those docu- 
 ments signed by the same person ? 
 No. Of course there is some similarity 
 between them. 
 
 In your experience in banking circles 
 can you >"iy if it is possible for an ex- 
 pert penman, with two or three months 
 at his disposal, to copy out words from 
 another person's hand-writing, and 
 build up a document that would de- 
 ceive anyone ? - 1 could not answer that 
 question. 
 
 Can an expert penman forge another 
 man's hand-writing ? 
 
 His Honor : What is the use of ask- 
 ing that question when everyone knows 
 that forgeries can be made. 
 
 BY MR. WANT. 
 
 Did you not speak to him outside the 
 door of the Court ? Yes ; I asked him 
 if I would be wanted to-day. 
 
 Petitioner : When did you speak to 
 me first? In this Court at 4 o'clock 
 yesterday. 
 
 Have you ever seen me before ? 
 No, sir. 
 
 Have you ever received a communi- 
 cation from me '? No, sir.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 305 
 
 HIS HONOR AND THE CASE. 
 
 The Foreman of the Jury asked if it Friday. 1 have been sitting since the 
 
 were the intention of his Honor to sit first week in February without a day 
 
 on Friday. off. I have two months' hard work 
 
 His Honor: As soon as the evidence before me, and " All work and no play 
 
 is closed in this Case I will, lam sorry makes Jack a dull boy." (Laughter.) 
 
 to say, have to adjourn it for two In answer to M r. Want, his Honor 
 
 months I have to go away on Circuit said . j saw the chief j ust i c e, and he 
 
 on Morday. and I shall not be able to made application to another Judge to 
 
 get back from Circuit until probably take the M a i t i an d Circuit, but he was 
 
 the first week in Term. I shall be a unable If you can persuade the 
 
 whole month on Circuit. There are Attorney-General to send another 
 
 other matters in Term that I must deal j udge to Maitiand it would be a great 
 
 with, therefore I shall not be able to convenience to me. This is a most 
 
 -deal with this Case until Tuesday, i mportant an d very serious Case. It 
 
 is it matter of almost national importance, 
 
 Foreman of the Jury: \Vill the Court therefore no chance of risk should be 
 
 .sit on } riday ? allowed to arise 
 
 His Honor: No, we adjourn to- ,. ,,, , r . , , . 
 
 morrow, as soon as the evidence is Mr Wan : The Jurymen look well 
 
 closed . As there has to be such a long b:lt one K of tl ? eni S ht ^-(Laughter) 
 
 adjournment it is better that the T^ 1 the whole Case wou T '? 
 
 Addresses to the Jury should be ^ S ne over again I don t think 
 
 delivered all together ther ? Wl1 } ** any difficulty in getting 
 
 another Judge to go to Maitiand. 
 
 Foreman of the Jury : We will sit on 
 
 Friday if you require it. The Court then adjourned to 10 a.m 
 
 His Honor: I don't intend to sit on the following day. 
 
 On the morning of the 28th March, Mr Want told his Honor 
 that he had been informed by the Secretary of the Attorney- 
 General, Mr. Pollock, that arrangements had been made to appoint 
 another Judge to take the Maitiand Circuit. 
 
 At the request of his Honor the Associate then left the Court 
 to telephone to the Law Department. On returning into Court 
 the Associate stated that the Attorney-General was out, and Mr. 
 Pollock had just gone down to the Executive Council. The 
 Associate again left the Court to telephone to Mr. Critchett 
 Walker, the Principal Under-Secretarv, to ascertain if an Order in 
 Council had been prepared for the appointment of another Judge 
 to take the Maitiand Circuit. On returning into Court the 
 Associate informed his Honor that arrangements had been made for 
 Mr. Justice Owen to finish the Case. His Honor was then pleased 
 to inform the Jury that he would finish the Case. 
 
 JOHN FRYER IN THK WITNESS-BOX. 
 
 John Fryer, sworn and examined by examination. It is for the Jury to say 
 
 the Petitioner, said he was a litho- if it is possible for this to be done, 
 
 graphic artist and designer. Petitioner : If I can show that people 
 
 Have you had a large experience in can copy signatures and words 1 think 
 
 copying writing? - I can copy signa- it is evidence material to the issue, 
 
 tures and general writing sufficiently Mr. Want : The question is whether 
 
 well to puzzle an expert. an expert penman can copy an original 
 
 Is it possible for an expert to copy document. There was no original 
 
 Mr. Want: I object to this kind of document in this case to copy from.
 
 3 
 
 Till-; CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Petitioner to witness : If you had a 
 bundle of papers in my hand-writing 
 before you, could you pick out sufficient 
 sentences and copy them to make one 
 complete document ? If I had a suffi- 
 cient number I could. Suppose there 
 was an absent " m " from the writing 
 it would be a question how to form 
 one, and one would be guided by the 
 formation of the " n's." 
 
 If you had a number of documents 
 in my hand-writing could you in three 
 months copy words so as to form a 
 letter that would deceive many people 
 into the belief that it was my hand- 
 writing ? It would require much less 
 
 time than three months. The only diffi- 
 culty would be with absent characters. 
 I should have to decide how to decipher 
 their character by means of examining 
 the others. 
 
 Have you ever seen me before ? 
 Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Have you ever received any com- 
 munication from me before ? No. 
 
 Mr. Want : Good morning. 
 
 Petitioner : There is no necessity to 
 insult my witness 
 
 Mr. Want: I only said "good 
 morning," as I did not wish to cross- 
 examine him, or to waste time. 
 
 PETITIONER RE-ENTERS THE BOX. 
 
 Petitioner then entered the box and 
 made a statement explaining the cir- 
 cumstances under which he had visited 
 the houses at which Mrs. Coningham 
 stayed at Paddington and at Fair- 
 field. He bad asked the Divorce Court 
 what was his position in connection 
 with his children, and was told that as 
 he was their father and guardian, he 
 could see them whenever he liked. As 
 
 to Mrs. 13 , he would like to say 
 
 why he took her to a certain house. If 
 
 he could not get it out now, then he 
 would do so in his Address to the 
 
 Jury- 
 Mr. Want : I object to it now. 
 Petitioner : Whilst I was at the table 
 Mr. Want was always making remarks 
 about mo having given her " whisky, 
 boots, and fruit," but I swear I never 
 did anything of the kind. Do you 
 wish to ask me any questions, Mr. 
 Want ? 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. WANT. 
 
 Where are you living now? At the 
 residence of the Rev Dill-Macky. 
 
 Where were you living before that ? 
 At 148 Phillip Street. 
 
 Where is Mrs. B living ?--At 
 
 Rand wick. 
 
 Did she live in Phillip Street ? Yes. 
 At 148, after I left. 
 
 Is that the same place you were at? 
 
 Yes, but she came there after I left. 
 She was a principal witness, and I had 
 to keep my eye on her. 
 
 Mr. Want : That will do, thank you. 
 
 Petitioner: When Mrs. B came 
 
 to 148 Phillip Street I left. In fact, I 
 left before she came. I sent her there. 
 They tried every way to get her from, 
 me. That is my Case, your Honor. 
 
 MR. WANT'S ADDRESS. 
 
 Mr. Want, in opening his remarks to the Jury, said that as one 
 of the Jurymen had asserted, the Co-respondent was virtually on 
 his trial for his life. If he had been guilty of the conduct charged 
 against him, if he had taken a pure woman away from her home 
 and in his priestly character committed the offence charged against 
 him, hanging would be no punishment ; but if, on the other hand, 
 they wished to protect society and wished to protect their fellow- 
 men from charges being made against them by women absolutely 
 and wholly uncorroborated, and if they wished to purge society of 
 that greatest curse which sometimes annoyed and destroyed it 
 the offence of the black-mailer then there was no reward which 
 could be held out to him for manfully and courageously standing 
 his ground, and going into Court, not only in the interests of him- 
 self but in the interests of society, and saying, " I will not be black-
 
 THE SECON'D TRIAL. 307 
 
 -mailed. I will rely upon the verdict of twelve of my fellow-country- 
 men." Mr. Want referred to several Cases which had occurred in 
 England, America, and this country which, he said, were demon- 
 strated to be Cases of black-mail. He would undertake to show 
 that on the woman's own hand-writing" that was not yet in evidence 
 that she was a self-confessed liar. He would undertake to prove 
 that in such a way that not one of them would leave the box in 
 doubt, and that would be from a document put in for identification. 
 Fortunately, in looking through it he had found passages which 
 would show them that Dr. O'Haran, Langton, and the boy were 
 telling the truth with regard to one of the most important parts of 
 the C ase, and that the woman stood as a self-confessed liar. On 
 account of some remaining doubt which might have . emained in 
 their minds, he had determined to take the extreme step of going 
 into the enemy's camp he meant to Exton and those people. He 
 had chanced calling Exton, but he had admitted he had done it 
 with a great deal of trepidation. He knew his side had got infor- 
 mation from Exton, but he did not know at any moment he might 
 be tripped up. He went into the enemy's camp, and called " Dear 
 Jim" to give Ivs evidence a man who up to March 6th was the 
 Petitioner's bosoin friend and companion. He took the responsi- 
 bility with considerable fear and trembling of calling the Petitioner's 
 absolute companion to see if he would corroborate what he had 
 told privately. He felt sure they would throw aside all questions 
 of feeling in the matter and shut their ears and their minds to what 
 had been said out of Court. It was very easy for people at street- 
 corners, who had not to decide whether a man had to live or to die, 
 to wag their tongues and talk glibly about the guilt of Dr. O'Haran 
 or Mr. Coningham. But when twelve men went into the box and 
 had to perform the sacred duty upon oath, then he was sure he 
 would not be appealing to them in vain to set aside all they had 
 heard otherwhere, that they might try the Case wholly and solely 
 on the evidence before them. The Case had been talked about by 
 everybody. He did not think there was a man, woman, or child in 
 the whole community who had not talked the matter over, but they 
 had not been in the position of Jurymen. Some people outside the 
 Court had been mixing themselves up in the Case, and doing what 
 was criminal in endeavouring to take means to affect the minds of 
 the Jury. He (Mr. Want) did not pay the slightest attention to it. 
 He did not believe there was one man in the Jury who would listen 
 to it. And when that man Dill-Macky told Exton there was a 
 Jury List, the proof that he (Mr. Want) did not pay the slightest 
 attention to it was that there were men on the List that he had left 
 on it. He had too much respt^t for his fellow-countrymen and for 
 the position they occrpied to allow his mind to be ii fluenced by any 
 such statements, and he asked them to believe him when he said 
 that he cast aside with disgust the insulting and offensive idea that 
 in this community of Australia there were Jurymen \\l-.o would allow 
 themselves to be approached by anyone when they knew they were
 
 308 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 going into the Jury-box to give a decision upon their oaths He 
 implored them as an Officer of the Court and as a member of the 
 community to agree to a verdict of some kind. Nothing was worse 
 for a community or a country than for it to be known there were 
 no means of arriving at a decision in a Court of Justice. If in that 
 Case Coningham proved that Dr. O'Haran had done the things 
 charged then they must give him a verdict. If Coningham had 
 not satisfied them that Dr. O'Haran had done these things 
 then they must give a verdict in favour of the Co-respondent. 
 But there was a third course open to them, and it was the Law. 
 If they could not say who was telling the truth in the matter, if 
 their minds were left a blank, if they could not come to a conclu- 
 sion one way or the other, then they were bound in that case to- 
 give a verdict to the Co-respondent. The Case had to be tried as 
 a Criminal Case. If they were left in doubt they were bound to 
 give the Co-respondent the benefit of the doubt. Where there 
 was a clear-cut issue it would be a sad thing for the State, and 
 they would be falling into the rank and place of another great 
 nation which was disgraced by party feeling he was referring to 
 the Dreyfus Case if the Jury could not come to a decision. I'he 
 Case reached not only all over the State, but in its importance 
 almost to the ends of the world. People would say there was 
 something rotten in the state of Denmark if they could not come 
 to a decision, and the administration of Justice in New South 
 Wales would stink in the nostrils of the Nations of the World. 
 He hoped that whatever decision they arrived at he would be 
 satisfied with it. One of the greatest Judges in England had said 
 that where a woman had charged a man with an offence of this kind 
 there was no charge so easily made and no charge so hard ta 
 disprove. A woman came into Court and said a man had com- 
 mitted adultery with her. What could the man say? He could 
 only say he did not. Fortunately, in that Case they were in a 
 better position. What a sorry picture they had got ! It seemed 
 to be almost a reflection on the womanfolk of the State. Had 
 there ever been such a pitiful spectacle of an apparently respectable 
 woman claiming to be respectable defending a divorce, coming 
 into Court as a voluntary witness and swearing to the most filthy 
 details that the mind of man or beast could conceive. She came 
 into Court for the purpose of enabling her husband to get the^5,coo 
 out of the pockets of Dr. O'Haran with a brazen, base impudence, 
 and told that dirty story of her own dishonour. If he sat in the 
 Jury and heard a woman swear that on the first occasion when a 
 man had this illicit love with her, and that filthy thing passed at 
 the same time, he would not believe it, and he could not believe 
 there was a man in the w^ J who could believe the woman when 
 she sa'd Dr O'Haran made use of that beastly expression at that 
 very time, and when, she said he was seducing her by force. They 
 started with the fact that the wom;m went there to help her 
 husband to get the money. By-and-bye the man would tell them
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 309 
 
 that he did not want the money. He would tell them he was 
 going to give it to his wife and children. If he got the divorce all 
 he had to do was to marry the woman afterwards, and then they 
 would find plenty of oysters and stout flying about. They would 
 hear the story of his home being broken up. But if ever he 
 attempted the dramatic business in the Court, let them take a 
 snap-shot of him when he was getting through the front window 
 and Mrs. Bonner was being let in at the back, and then another 
 snap-shot of him in the back-room having cold fish and porter. 
 Then they would find that that woman was living at the same 
 house he had been living in. The Petitioner went into Court and 
 asked them to destroy a man's life on the uncorroborated testimony 
 of a woman. Was there a man in the whole community who 
 would be safe if that were done ? In most cases it was unnecessary 
 to rake up a person's past life, especially if their past life had not 
 been the cleanest, but in a case of that kind there was no other 
 road for a man to follow. When they played with pitch they must 
 expect to have their hands defiled. He made no bones about it. 
 At the beginning he threw down the gauntlet. He started with 
 the buttons off the foils, and he told them it was nothing but a 
 black-mailing Case and a vile conspiracy between those people. 
 Any girl might have the misfortune to be seduced. This one 
 began at a very young age. They found her at the age of 17 
 going about in widow's weeds, not for the death of the child, or 
 for the death of the husband, because he had gone to America, 
 but for the purpose of running a bar at a canteen at the barracks. 
 He did not know whether the Jury had noticed it, but when Mr. 
 Coningham asked her if Dr. O'Haran had ever attempted to exert 
 his influence over her to prevent her from falling, she replied, "No, 
 I did not want him to." She wanted to be seduced. She wanted 
 the damages. Then he would take Mr. Coningham's life. Five 
 gentlemen helped him in business, and set him up at Waverley. 
 They then found him going insolvent. The Registrar told him his 
 replies were evasive and bad. He then turned round and called 
 the men who had been helping him a gang of thieves. Afterwards 
 they found him with his wife living, according to his story, in a 
 happy home, with his children gathered around him. But he 
 would let a little daylight into their life. (Counsel read from some 
 of the Sliiel letters that had been put in in evidence ) Was not 
 that the conclusion he was asking them to come to ? His own 
 wife, who had known him for years, declared in one of her letters, 
 that she could not believe a word he said. On M^y 24th he said he 
 suspected his wife. Well, they all remembered that at the Glebe 
 Mrs. Bostock proved Dr. O'Haran's photo, was in the drawer for 
 anyone to see it. That was in 1898. That photo, was the great 
 corroboration of her Case. He went to her drawer and he found 
 one of these three-penny harps. He (Mr. Want) got one of those 
 harps s-nt to h':n last St. Patrick's Dav. It was in a woman's hand- 
 writing, and he would not be surprised to get a petition in divorce for
 
 310 THE CONIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 accepting it. When Coningham found that, he asked her, " Have 
 you committed adultery with that man?" Was it probable at all 
 that he would do that ? She replies at all events, "Yes, I did." 
 Would not they have thought the woman would have said, " Yes, 
 I got that harp, but why do you ask me if I have committed 
 adultery with a man wholly and solely because you found his 
 portrait in there ?" That was the cock-and-bull part of the story. 
 Till June i3ththeystill occupied the same bedroom at Miller's house. 
 He said he could not afford to pay for a separate room, but as he 
 did not pay anything at all it did not matter if he doubled it. 
 There was, no doubt, a nice little lot of chin-wagging at night. 
 He said, " I will go down to Sydney, make it appear that we 
 had a row, and you write the confession and send it to me." They 
 could have proved condonation on that fact alone, and could have 
 demanded the refusal of the divorce, but such a course would have 
 been ruination to Dr. O'Haran. 
 
 [His Honor : Possibly the matter might have been stopped in 
 that way, but the matter had to come before the Judge after the 
 Jury's verdict was given.] 
 
 Mr. Want : Mrs. Coningham herself could have pleaded 
 condonation if she did not want to get money, but if she didn't get 
 the divorce she would get no money. Although Coningham was 
 conducting his own Case there were very few Members of the Bar 
 who could have beaten him, and the Respondent was a good 
 witness. In his whole thirty-five years of experience he had never 
 heard a woman tell such a beautiful lie. Could they not fancy 
 Coningham being paralysed at receiving a confession at a post- 
 office window, after having posted it in Sydney to himself, and 
 addressing it from Fairfield. But clever people made mistakes 
 sometimes, and the mistake in this instance was plain on the face 
 of the document. After receiving this confession, the Petitioner 
 and the Respondent lived together for a considerable time. If a 
 man was honest and straightforward, was convinced of his wife's 
 adultery, and received a written confession of her sin, do you not 
 think the proper thing for him to do would be to file a petition for 
 divorce against the man who had betrayed him. But that would 
 not do in this Case, because the game was black-mail. He, there- 
 fore, wrote to Cardinal Moran on June I4th, the day after he received 
 the written confession from the Post Office. He (Mr. Want) 
 objected to the production of the threatening letters sent by 
 the Petitioner to Cardinal Moran, because, when a person wanted 
 to make out a Case he wrote a letter which, if produced, would 
 give him all the assistance he wanted. This Idler to Cardinal 
 Moran was a delicate hint to him that the atTair coulJ ,be 
 " squared," and that if it were not the Petitioner would commence 
 proceedings,. He received no reply to the letter, and then lie sent 
 another on Itine 2 i st. That did not succeed in eliciting a reply from 
 Cardinal Moran. Petitioner admitted that in one of his leuers he
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 311 
 
 threatened to send out 150,000 posters to the Catholic Convention, 
 setting forth certain charges against Dr. O Haran Petitioner in 
 his evidence, said, " I wrote to the Co-respondent a threatening 
 letter. The language was rather strong." Finding he could get 
 nothing out of the Cardinal, the Petitioner said to himself, " I 
 must now have 'a ban^ at Dr. O'Har -n by means of these posters." 
 He doubtless said to himself, " Dr. O'Haran will have to pay a lot 
 of money ta fight this, and he had better square the matter by 
 giving me half of what it would cost him, if he proceeded with the 
 matter." If Dr. O'Haran had been false to himself, to his Church, 
 and to the community in which he lived, would it not have been 
 -easy for him to pay Coningham a few hundred pounds black-mail? 
 But Dr. O'Haran did not take the bait. He said, " I won't be 
 black-mailed." He sent for Superintendent Camphin and handed 
 the letters to that officer. Superintendent Camphin said : " This 
 is a case ot black-mail. Don't give in to them. They won't go on 
 with this. Don't have anything to do with it." Then the lady got 
 to work on the telephone, and tried to entrap Dr. O'Haran, who 
 replied, "Not to save myself or the Church will I see you. For 
 the sake of the community I live in I will stand my ground. I 
 will not see you. I won't be ^lack-mailed. You can go and do 
 your worst." Was that the action of a guilty man ? Was it not, 
 on the other side, the action of a guilty pair, who were trying to 
 screw money out of the Co-respondent? Petitioner, finding him- 
 self stranded, had either to draw back, and, perhaps, be prosecuted 
 for sending threatening letters, or go on with the petition. He 
 chose the latter course, and decided to see it out. All this time he 
 was living in the same house with Mrs. Coningham, and occupying 
 the same bed. 
 
 [Petitioner : That is not in evidence.] 
 
 Mr. Want admitted it was not in evidence, but it mu-t s'rike 
 the Jury as sensible men that if a man occupied the same bedroom 
 as his wife he would not lie in the fire-grate whilst his wife occupied 
 the bed. At the last trial Mr. Justice Simpson said t at if a man 
 were found coming out of a bedroom everyone would presume adul- 
 tery with the woman in that room, unless they were man and wife. 
 All this went on while Mr. and Mrs. Coningham were trying to get 
 money from Dr O'Haran. That alone should be sufficient to pre- 
 vent Petitioner getting a divorce. They found the Petitioner sleep- 
 ing with his wife at Miller's, then at Stanmore, and then going to 
 Mrs. Abraham's. All this after he had received his confession of 
 guilt. But when the petition was served by Petitioner upon Mrs. 
 Coningham, he said, " I will go to Jesmond Place and you go to 
 Bray's, so that the Jury cannot say we slept together after the 
 petition was served." But they found that night after night Peti- 
 tioner left his own house at Jesmond Place to sleep in the bed of 
 his wife at Bray's hou?e. It was a marvel to him 'Mr. Want) that 
 Ihe Jury wanted any more evidence; but he must go on. Coming
 
 312 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 back to the confession, let them see what a beautiful thing it was. 
 Here was a woman writing down the story pf her own guilt, not 
 for the purpose of getting- a divorce, but to enable the Petitioner 
 to get money in a Court of Justice out of her dishonour. The Law 
 said she need not give evidence of her own dishonour, yet she 
 entered the box and, with gusto, confessed her guilt. But for her 
 evidence there was no Case against Dr. O'Haran, because they had 
 not a letter or witness against him. She is the only woman on 
 this earth who has done such a thing, and he hoped she would be 
 the last. They heard Exton say that Mr. and Mrs. Coningham 
 met near Mr. Abigail's house late one night, and that Coningham 
 said to Exton they the Petitioner and Mrs. Coningham - had 
 " squared." He asked the Jury to note that they then altered the 
 date of the confession from whatever it was to what it was now in 
 order to suit their own Case. Accordingly, the confession was 
 altered so as to read that she was first seduced on July 3rd. If she 
 told a lie about the date, were they going to believe the rest of her 
 evidence. They did not want an expert to point out to them that 
 there had been an erasure in the confession. Petitioner said a tear 
 had fallen on the place where the erasure was. It was a funny tear 
 that could wipe out one date and substitute another. ' Supposing 
 the Jury tried a man for murdering another on the 2Qth June, and 
 on the evidence of a person who said he saw the supposed mur- 
 derer in the man's house on the 2gth June, found him guilty, and 
 he was hanged. What would be the state of their consciences if 
 some time afterwards the witness said, " 1 made a mistake in the 
 date. It was not the 2gth June, it v as the ist July when I saw the 
 man in the house of the murdered man. " The Jury was trying this 
 Case as a criminal cause, and if there was any r bt about the date 
 on the confession their decision should be given in favour of the 
 innocence of the Co-respondent. How could any Juryman go to 
 his home with a quiet mind knowing that he hanged a man on ihe 
 oath of a woman who swore there was no erasure in a certain docu- 
 ment? For two months the Petitioner had in his pocket his wife'- con- 
 fession of June i3th, and he admitted that on August I3th, with the 
 confession in his possession, he wrote, " I am going to issue placards 
 all over the place. Space for photograph. Photo, of the black- 
 hearted thing who seduced the wife in the Cardinal's Hall on the 
 night of October 2nd, 1898." That date contained the whole key to 
 the alteration in the confession. That confession was originally 
 dated October 2nd, and for reasons of their own they thought October 
 2nd would not do. They, therefore, altered it from October 2nd to 
 July 3rd. Why ? Because July 3rd was a date that would suit 
 them. It was Procession Sunday, on which day Dr. O'Haran was 
 bound to be on duty at the Cathedral to take charge of the Proces- 
 sion. If the Jury looked at the document they would see an 
 erasure, and that the "3" was made out of the "2," and " rd" 
 altered to " nd," whilst "July" was subs itu'ed on the erasure for 
 " October." If Mrs. Coningham had told a dehbera'e lie abouL that
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 document how could the Jury believe a word of her evidence ? 
 People outside might have formed strong opinions about the Case, 
 but when the Jury came to consider whatever suspicions they had 
 as to there being something in her story, let them remember that 
 she stood unconfirmed, and that with the confession staring her in 
 the face she was telling a lie. That brought him to the time when 
 the confession was written. When asked if he had not a confession 
 from his wife dated May 24th, Petitioner said there was no such 
 document, but he (Mr. Want) was able to confront him with a 
 piece of paper on which was written, "24 May. Confession." Then 
 a blank, and signed "Mabel " Petitioner then said it was only a 
 verbal confession, but whoever heard of a verbal confession being 
 signed ? The Jury might have formed a strong opinion about the 
 Case, and might say, " We don't know whom to believe," but in 
 all honesty they should not shut their eyes to the fact that if they 
 did it know what to do, they could not, with doubt in their minds, 
 find Dr. O'Haran guilty. This brought him to the last trial, when 
 Mrs. Coningham said it was on June 29th, 1898, that Dr. O'Haran 
 first took liberties with her. She was very careful to select a holy 
 day of obligation, when Dr. O'Haran was certain to be at St. 
 Mary's Cathedral, so she selected June 2gth because it was the Feast 
 Day of SS. Peter and Paul. She stuck to that date all through the 
 last trial, though ten witnesses were called and swore it was 
 an absolute lie. Since then Petitioner and Mrs. Coningham 
 found that the evidence against them was too strong, and that the 
 Co-respondent intended calling even more witnesses, Protestants 
 as well as Catholics, to back him up in the Burwood alibi. So when 
 the Respondent was in the box on the present trial, and towards the 
 end of her examination by the Petitioner, the latter said, " I believe 
 you made a mistake about June 29th." She replied, "Yes. It was 
 not on that day. It was on a wet day. It was on April 3Oth." 
 What put it into Petitioner's head to ask if she had made a mistake 
 about the date of June 2gth ? Did it not show that after the last 
 trial they were in collusion, and had made up their minds to fix up 
 another date on a wet day? They accordingly went up to the 
 Observatory and selected a wet day which they considered could 
 not be controverted. Who told the Petitioner about the two new 
 dates fixed upon April rst and 3Oth in lieu of June 2gth ? Mrs. 
 Coningham sw re she never told him, yet it was a curious circum- 
 stance that he asked her about those new dates. 
 
 [Petitioner : No, I did not. Refer to the notes of the trial.] 
 
 Wr. Want said it was in evidence that Petitioner asked Mrs. 
 Conuigham about those. (The note^ were looked up, and it was- 
 found that Petitioner asked Mrs. Coningham about the ist and 
 30th April.) He again asked the Jury to consider how 
 the Petitioner could know anything about those dates, unless- 
 under the assumption that he had been in collusion with his 
 wife. They fixed upon those dates, but, unfortunately for them,.
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 upon dates they could not prove. Mrs. Coningham had evidently 
 been to the Cathedral since the alterations were made, and found 
 there was a passage between the Cathedral and the fernery. She 
 therefore came into Court, forgetful that there had been alterations, 
 and said she went between the Cathedral and the fern-house. She 
 also swore that when she got out of the Cathedral she went down two 
 or three steps, but thejurynow know therewere i7steps thereat that 
 time. Notwithstanding the Jury saw the old wooden steps and 
 noted that she could not have gone down the passage to the fern- 
 house, except by passing through a stone wall, she swore that 
 what Mr. Barr said was wrong, and what the Jury saw was also 
 wrong. It was admitted that the nirht of July 3rd was a solemn 
 occasion, and one on which Dr. O'Haran must be present all the 
 time as the master of the ceremonies connected with the Procession? 
 Did the Jury believe that a priest engaged in such a solemn function 
 would ask a woman to come down to the Cardinal's Hall for an 
 illicit purpose, and at a time when the Hall was lighted up for the 
 convenience of the ladies who robed there for the Procession ? 
 Why did she not come at times when the Cardinal's Hall was not 
 being used, when it was in darkness, and when Dr. O'Haran could 
 have entered it at any time with a key unknown to anyone ? But 
 how was the charge met that Dr. O'Haran was absent from his 
 duties for three-quarters of an hour on the night in question? 
 Cardinal Moran said that Dr. O'Haran was not absent from his 
 duties, whilst five or six other witnesses swore positively that he 
 was present all the time that the Respondent said he was absent 
 with her in the Cardinal's Hall. They had the additional evidence 
 at this trial of Mr. Tomlinson, editor of the Licensing Guardian 
 paper. Being a stranger to Sydney, and being anxious to see how 
 a procession was carried out at St. Mary's Cathedral, he attended 
 the service on the night of July 3rd, and closely watched the whole 
 proceedings. He swore positively that Dr. O'Haran was not 
 absent from his duties. Was that gentleman not to be believed as 
 much as Mrs. Coningham ? If the Jury had any doubt about her 
 testimony on this point they were bound to give the verdict in 
 favour of Dr. O Haran. Mrs. Coningham swore there were not 
 17 steps leading down from the Cathedral to the Cardinal's Hall, 
 but when Mr. Barr, Clerk of Works during the alterations, proved 
 there were 17 steps, and produced a plan of the alterations showing 
 there was no passage-way between the Cathedral and the fern- 
 house, it fairly staggered her. On the very night of the day on 
 which the plan was produced and she heard Mr. Barr's evidence, 
 she wrote a note to Coningham, at least he (Mr. Want) asserted 
 that it was her hand-writing. He would not bother the Jury with 
 any argument as to whether the experts were ri.;ht or wrong in 
 their conclusions about the writing on the note. He would leave 
 it to the Jury to decide. It was enough for him to say that all the 
 questions suggested by her in the note were put to her on the 
 following day, a clear proof that there had been collusion between
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 315 
 
 them. He now came to a matter in regard to which he had said he 
 would convince her out of her own mouth that she is an absolute 
 and wicked liar. They would remember that she swore that when 
 she went down to have the child baptised it was agreed between 
 her and Dr. O'Haran that he was not to baptise it because it was 
 to be christened after him, and because he was the father of the 
 child. Fortunately, he (Mr. Want) in reading over one of Mrs. 
 Coningham's letters to Miss Shiel, written the night after the 
 baptism, came across the following- sentence. " How we caught 
 the Doctor. Do you really think he knew we were there, or did 
 the silly boy mix up the messages. Was he not very funny, and 
 never even asked the baby's name ?" Did ihe Jury want any more 
 than that to prove her a false witness? He asked the Jury 
 to give considerable attention to that letter. He asked them 
 also to consider, when they compared that lady's uncorroborated 
 testimony with that of other witnesses, whether they could place 
 any reliance upon her statements. He now came to the incident 
 on March iyth, although it seemed a waste of time drawing 
 attention to all these matters. Now he came to the question of St. 
 Patrick's Concert. She swore that on March iyth between half- 
 past 7 and 8 o'clock she was in evening dress in the Cardinal's 
 Hall with the Co-respondent. Now was it likely that adultery had 
 been committed under those circumstances? Then she brought 
 her sister to say she was subsequently at the corner of Market and 
 Elizabeth Streets. What had that do with it ? The fact of her 
 being at the corner of Elizabeth Street did not show that she was 
 in the Cardinal's Hall at some other time. It was a fortunate 
 thing, it seemed a dispensation of Providence, that this woman had 
 picked out a date when a hitch occurred at the Town Hall, and 
 called Dr. O'Haran away from the Presbytery. All the witnesses 
 proved that between five minutes past 7, or even a quarter past 7, 
 and 8 o'clock, the Co-respondent went to the Town Hall and 
 remained there. In the face of nine respectable witnesses she had 
 to go into Court to brazen out this. As to the name " Zero," Mrs. 
 Coningham said she knew nothing about him, but it was a very 
 funny thing that he asked all the questions in the " Zero " letter. 
 They had to fix two other dates. Was it this " Zero " who gave 
 them the information ? At all events they fixed on two other dates 
 April ist and 3oth, and they thought they then had him. Mr. 
 Want read from two letters that had been put in in evidence : 
 " Dear Jim, I was disappointed at not seeing ' Zero.' I suppose 
 he was afraid to meet me in the daylight." There was another 
 letter: "I never was with O'H. on those afternoons 'Zero' 
 speaks of." Then there was another letter written at the time of 
 the Brisbane trip. " I am writing this in the train. It makes it 
 very awkward, I hope you had some success with the woman." 
 Exton had explained that. It was a woman Coningham wanted 
 to get a statement from. He wanted Exton to get the woman to 
 make a statement. The note was, " Caught Miss F y in a
 
 316 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 trap Will try again soon, and then force her in." It was true 
 he was trying to get a lady in a trap. It was the lady who was 
 .at Mark Foy's, and the same lady he was with in the oyster saloon 
 and that he was in the wine shop with. He admitted he was there 
 with her. His letter to Exton explained it, " I hope you will have 
 some success with the woman." Exton had said that woman was 
 
 Miss F -y. All that Exton said was proved by documents in 
 
 Coningham's own hand-writing. He would not supply a halo to 
 Mr. Exton. At the same time, it was not only fair to him, but to 
 liimself, who was conducting the Case, to admit that it w r as quite 
 possible that up to a certain stage in this Case he might have 
 thought he was helping Coningham in a just cause, and at the same 
 time he found as the Case was going on he might have had two 
 ideas in his mind one was that he was hardly doing the right 
 thing, and the other was that he was sailing too close to the 
 wind for a Case of Conspiracy. Fortunately at this Trial they fell 
 out, and Dr. O'Haran got the benefit of it. Exton produced a 
 document in which the name of " Zero" appeared. Now he was 
 going to show how the " Zero " information was used. What was 
 taking place during the last Trial ? There was no plea of con- 
 donation, because such a plea would be an admission of adultery. 
 At the first Trial they were labouring under the difficulty that, 
 whilst everything was being done apparently fair and square, these 
 people were conferring together, and the Petitioner was told what 
 to do. Exton was the go-between. [Mr. Want complained of an 
 interruption made by the Petitioner, and said he was afraid he 
 would have to ask his Honor to have him put out of Court. His 
 Honor was afraid he would have to do that. The Petitioner had 
 no right to interfere. The Petitioner said that Mr. Want was 
 stating what was not in evidence. His Honor remarked that 
 Coningham could not interrupt unless Counsel was misquoting 
 evidence, and then the Petitioner must show the passage. ] Mr. 
 Want said the way in which he had been able to hoodwink the 
 Jury, to deceive men trying to act honestly between the parties, 
 and the way he did deceive them, as was proved by the June 2gth 
 allegations the reason he had been able to do that was that these 
 people were acting together outside the Court all the time. Now, 
 Coningham admitted that June 2gth was abandoned. It was July 
 3rd. Fortunately, they had a witness who could fix upon that 
 date. Still, the Respondent came into Court and adhered to 
 March lyth. Before they could give a verdict against Dr. 
 O'Haran, and before they could give a verdict for her, they would 
 have to come to the conclusion that the ten or twelve witnesses who 
 swore he was at the Town Hall were not only perjurers, but that 
 they were conspirators. She stated that on April ist, at 4 o'clock 
 in the afternoon, she was at the Cathedral in a cab and was dressed 
 in dark green velvet. She said that the adultery was committed 
 shortly before 6 o'clock on April 3oth. Petitioner wished to show 
 that the adultery took place between i p.m. and 6 p.m. He was
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 317 
 
 trying to wriggle out of an awkward position, but he failed, 
 because the Respondent in cross-examination said the adultery was 
 committed more towards the evening than the afternoon, and that 
 it was before 6 o'clock. He asked her if she wished to alter the 
 date, and she said " No." He then thought to stagger her by 
 handing her a newspaper showing that Dr. O'Haran was at Waitara 
 on that very day all the afternoon, and did not return to St. Mary's 
 until a quarter to 8 o'clock. When he asked her if she had not 
 made a mistake in the day, and had been a bit unlucky in choosing 
 that day, she said " No. I know it was on a Sunday." When 
 asked if she wanted to shift the date she said " No." On the next 
 <lay, when he again tackled her on the point, and asked if she 
 wanted to alter the time from a little before 6 o'clock in the even- 
 ing, she said : " You made we swear that time." How could he 
 make her swear that hour ? When he again pressed her as to the 
 time she said : "It was between i p.m. and 6 p.m." Eighteen 
 witnesses had sworn that Dr. O'Haran was at Waitara from 3 p.m. 
 to 5. >o p.m., and other evidence was produced to clearly prove that 
 Dr. O'Haran reached the Cathedral at a quarter to 8 o'clock. Onthe 
 night of April 3Oth, therefore, he could not have been committing 
 adultery with her at St. Mary's Cathedral at a quarter to 6 o'clock. 
 Was the Jury going to say that the whole of those eighteen witnesses 
 were telling lies ? If they found those witnesses were not perjurers, 
 and they came to the conclusion that they were telling the truth, 
 how could they come to any other conclusion than that Mrs. Con- 
 ingham was telling lies about the 3Oth April ? And if they could 
 not believe her statement about that day what credence could they 
 put in her other evidence? Finding that Dr. O'Haran could not 
 have been at St. Mary's Cathedral at a quarter to 6 o'clock on 
 April 30th, Petitioner harked back, and attempted to show that the 
 .adultery took place before Dr. O'Haran left St. Mary s Cathedral 
 with Cardinal Moran after luncheon for Waitara. Fortunately, 
 however, Father Treacy, of Nyngan, was able to come down to 
 Sydney, and show to the Court that he was in Dr. O'Haran's com- 
 pany all the time before he left the Cathedral for Waitara. The 
 Jury might say they could not come to a conclusion in favour of 
 Dr. O'Haran or the Petitioner, but the)' could say, " Circumstances 
 have occurred which enable us to take the safest and best course 
 open to a Jury, therefore we are entitled not to give a verdict for 
 Petitioner." They know now that there had been collusion between 
 the Petitioner and Respondent since the last trial. They learned 
 that Mrs. Coningham went to Fairfield as " Mrs. Arnold," and the 
 Co-respondent took the course of employing a private detective to 
 Avatch her. Mr. Waters was quite a match for Mr. Coningham. 
 Petitioner was guilty of conduct that would not recommend him to 
 the Young Men's Christian Association. (Laughter.) They sent 
 Mr. Waters up to Fairfield as " Captain Smith," ostensibly to buy 
 some land. Mr. Coningham went up to Fairfield to see his chil- 
 dren. Was it not funny for Coningham to say that he knew his
 
 318 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 children were up there, but he did not know his wife was there ? 
 They must remember the children were mere babies, and could not 
 be going about the world by themselves. That Coningham told n 
 lie when he said he did not know that Mrs. Coningham was there 
 is proved by his letter to Mr. Miller, in which he wrote : " What will 
 you charge for Mabel and Artie and a girl, and I suppose their 
 mother." What did the Jury make of that in the face of his assertion 
 that he did not know Mrs. Coningham was at Fairfield, and never 
 made any arrangements for his family to stay at Miller's house ? 
 His answer was given to mislead the Jury, and this from a man 
 who wanted the Jury to give him a verdict and substantial damages. 
 If it occurred a long time ago Petitioner could have said that he 
 had forgotten the circumstances, but this occurred only a few weeks 
 ago. If he was telling a lie about that, what credence could be 
 placed in the rest of his evidence ? As a matter of fact, he was a 
 transparent liar. Petitioner said that the whole of these documents 
 were absolute forgeries. There was in evidence before the Court 
 a telegram sent to Mr. Miller at Fairfield, as well as a letter-card 
 sent to " Mrs. V. Arnold," also at Miller's house. He believed, 
 and hoped, that without the assistance of either magnifying-glasses- 
 or experts, not one of the Jury who compared the telegram sent 
 to Miller, and the letter-card sent to "Mrs. V. Arnold," but would 
 see at a glance that they were in the same hand-writing. Petitioner 
 knew perfectly well that the letter-cards had been stolen at Fair- 
 field. He (Mr. Want) had got them, and did not care where they 
 came from. He (Mr. Want) knew perfectly well that if he got 
 Petitioner to admit that the telegram to Miller was in his own 
 hand-writing no power on earth could shake the belief of the Jury 
 that the letter-card to "Mrs. V. Arnold" was also in his hand- 
 writing. He gave Coningham credit for great ability. He would 
 make his fortune at the Bar if he only went straight. He grasped 
 the situation at once, and thought that if he admitted the telegram 
 he was "gone dead." Then, with that audacity begotten of des- 
 peration, and that boldness which he had exhibited all through the 
 Case, he said to himself, " I will swear that telegram is not in my 
 hand-writing." He (Mr. Want) admitted that Petitioner's denial 
 was a facer to him. He did not think he could find a witness who 
 would do such a thing in the face of what the witness knew. The 
 letter-card to " Dear Fred." contained the words, " I sent you a 
 wire yesterday, to meet me at Fairfield Station." He asked Peti- 
 tioner if he wrote that, and he said " Yes," The date of the 
 letter-card was February igth, and that of the telegram February 
 i8th, so that it was the telegram referred to in the letter-card. How- 
 ever, that was not enough for him. He faced it. There was no mis- 
 take about that. He said that notwithstanding he wrote a letter-card, 
 stating that he had sent Miller a telegram on the previous day, he did 
 not send that particular telegram. He (Mr. Want) was forced to prove,. 
 and did so conclusively, that there was only one telegram sent to- 
 Mr. Miller on February i8th, and hence it was the telegram in Court
 
 
 ARTHUR CONINGHAM. 
 
 THE PETITIONER.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 319 
 
 which the Petitioner denied having sent. If the Petitioner told a 
 lie about that telegram being a forgery, he (Mr. Want) was justified 
 in asking the Jury to say that he was telling an untruth when he said 
 the other documents were forgeries. As to what took place at Fair- 
 field, Coningham said that when he went there he did not know that 
 his wi.'e was staying at Miller's place. He said he went up to see 
 his children. But they were too young to be there without their 
 mother. The evidence of Mrs. Marquet showed that Mrs. Coning- 
 ham did not tell the truth when she said she did not know Coning- 
 ham was coming up. Coningham denied that he was in the vine- 
 yard with his wife, but Mrs. Marquet and Mr. Exton showed that 
 they were in the vineyard together. Mrs. Coningham also admitted 
 what her husband denied. What did they go down the vineyard for 
 but to talk about the Case ? He supposed they were fixing things 
 up for another chance in Court. Doubtless they said to each other : 
 " How nicely we humbugged the Jury at the last trial about June 
 agth. What about this time ? He is all right for the 3Oth April. 
 Fix him up for that date, and we will give up June agth." But the 
 watch -dogs of Mr. Slattery were about. The Co-respondent's ad- 
 visers had to use the same weapons that were used to detect ordinary 
 criminals. So the private detective saw that instead of Petitioner 
 being out playing with his children he was down in the garden pick- 
 ing grapes with Mrs. Coningham, and afterwards when they returned 
 into the house he went into her bedroom. On Tuesday, the 26th, 
 a post-card arrived, and a registered letter was sent on the 27th. In 
 the meantime the " Relief of ' Burrilda'" came, and they decided to 
 celebrate this with a jollification. Mrs. Marquet said they were 
 going to have the jollification on the Tuesday, but they had it on the 
 Wednesday, and they had it truly regardless of expense colonial 
 wine at is. per bottle. They had it regardless of expense and regard- 
 less of consequences. It would not be difficult to imagine the con- 
 sequences of colonial wine at is. per bottle. If it was mixed with 
 a little porter it would be easy to understand that Mrs. Coningham 
 would not be long in iosing her letters. At all events, she did lose 
 them. Mrs. Marquet swore it took place on Wednesday, and on 
 that Wednesday, to use a polite American expression, she got par- 
 ticularly " glad," and nad to retire from the battle of " Burrilda." 
 Mrs. Coningham swore that it was not kept up on the Wednesday 
 at all. She swore she was drugged by her friend Miller. What did 
 he want to drug her for ? If he wanted to steal her letters he could 
 have got them without drugging her. Her story was that after 
 drinking the wine she suddenly fell off a chair. All the other people 
 were there Miss Ashe, who had not been called ; Miller, who had 
 not been called: Mrs. Lewis, who had not been called ; Gallagher, 
 who. had not been called ; " Dear Fred," who had not been called at 
 all and then Coningham went into Court and told them it was all 
 clone by the drugging of his wife. Take the little girl's story. Al- 
 though he tried to make the girl swear that the spree was on the 
 Thursday and not on the Wednesday, that they were going to have
 
 320 
 
 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 it on the Wednesday, and it was put off, when he (Mr. Want) 
 cross-examined the child she swore they were going to have it on 
 the Tuesday, but it was put off. They had it on the Wednesday, 
 and she was ill on Thursday. Now, they had the fact that Mrs. 
 Coningham swore there was no spree on that night, that she did not 
 get drunk, and that she was drugged. The little girl told them it 
 was on that night, and that it was the Thursday morning the next 
 day that Mrs. Coningham was ill. 
 
 [The Petitioner here called the Judge's attention to the fact that 
 this was not in the evidence. His Honor said that he thought that 
 Mr. Want was not quite right in the dates there. His (the Judge's) 
 recollection was that she swore she was ill on Wednesday night. 
 They were drinking wine on Tuesday night. Mr. Want called 
 attention to the fact that Mrs. Coningham had said the jollification 
 was on Wednesday. His Honor assented. The jollification was on 
 Wednesday, but she was ill on Wednesday night.] 
 
 Mr. Want : That bears me out. She swore it was on the 
 Wednesday night she was drugged. This is the evidence. The 
 child swore that the spree was on the Wednesday night. Mrs. 
 Coningham swore there was no spree on that night, that there was 
 only one bottle of colonial wine, and that she was drugged. On 
 Thursday she was sick, but on Thursday afternoon, Friday, and 
 Saturday she was all right. That was what the little child said 
 simply a servant girl there. She said that instead of Mrs. Coning- 
 ham's story being true that the spree was on the Wednesday night, 
 that Mrs. Coningham was sick on Thursday, and that in the after- 
 noon and on Friday she was all right. Mr. and Mrs. Coningham 
 tried to make them believe that the reason she left was that her 
 letters were stolen. First of all, what did it matter if two letters 
 from persons whom she did not know were stolen. Why should she 
 leave, he would like to know ? She said she left because the letters 
 were stolen. By-and-bye the child comes along and says she left 
 there because she was frightened of Mr. Miller ; that she had 
 complained to Mrs. Coningham apparently of some improper 
 attentions that Mr. Miller was endeavoring to pay to the little girl. 
 After the attempt to drug, after the attempt to murder, they had 
 the fact that Mrs. Coningham was there for two days. She stayed 
 on Thursday " suffering a recovery," and did not leave till the 
 Saturday night. There was also the fact that Mr. Coningham went 
 to Parramatta on the very next Sunday. He got Miller to meet 
 him. When he got there he found his wife had left on the Saturday 
 night. Why did he go ? The two letters addressed to her, which 
 she had accepted as her own, which enclosed money, which she 
 took, and a registered letter under the name of " Mrs. Arnold " she 
 found they were gone, and she thought if the other side got hold of 
 them what she would do ? He (Mr. Want) supposed she thought, 
 " What a terrible thing if he has gone and registered it." She 
 cleared out, came down to town, and when Coningham learned at
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 321 
 
 Parramatta that she had left, he said, " Halloo, what is the matter ?" 
 He said to Exton, " You go over to ' Burrilda ' and find out what is 
 up, and I will go to Sydney." And that is what they did. He 
 wished to draw the attention of the Jury to two letters that had been 
 put in. First of all, he was done with the telegram. It would have 
 i>een absolute death to him if he had admitted that he wrote the 
 signature to the telegram. There it was in his own hand-writing. 
 Had they any doubt that they were corresponding under the name 
 of "Arnold," or "V. Arnold"? He stated in Court that he never 
 received a letter under the name of " Arnold," and there were four 
 witnesses from the Post Office who proved that he did receive those 
 letters. All through the case Coningham had been attempting to 
 throw mud. Several questions he asked were of a filthy and 
 obscene nature. Every witness he did not care who it was he 
 had grossly insulted, and even, indeed, in the case of the poor unfor- 
 tunate fellows from the Post Office, who had no interest in the 
 matter, he started out to make it appear that they were all in this 
 huge conspiracy. He also tried to make it appear that Mr. Crick 
 Avas in league with them, and was supplying this information from 
 the Post Office. Mr. Crick left the Post Office on March ist last. 
 He had no more to do with it than the Jury had. ' Mr. Drake was 
 the Federal Postmaster. The boys were discussing the Case in the 
 Post Office, and when questions arose in regard to " Mrs. Arnold " 
 they naturally remembered the letters supplied to that name. His 
 side then took the only course which the Courts of Law would 
 allow. They subpoenaed the Head of the Post Office. They sent 
 to Mr. Dalgarno to attend the Court, and to bring all letters 
 addressed " V. Arnold," or to supply information as to who received 
 them. The Head of the Department then sent the people who 
 were cognisant of the facts, and who were able to give information 
 upon the exact points required to be cleared up. Coningham was 
 well known as an athlete and a cricketer. The four boys swore that 
 what Coningham had told them was a deliberate lie. He swore he 
 never got the letters. They swore they gave them to him. He 
 ^aid he was paralysed when this evidence came down upon him as 
 .a toinado, and now he had stood up in the Court and told them 
 .another lie in regard to the letters. Apart altogether from the fact 
 that he was deceiving them, they had the fact that they were 
 corresponding under the name of " V. Arnold." If she was not 
 .going under the name of " V. Arnold," if she did not know she was 
 :going to get a letter under the name of " V. Arnold," what right had 
 ;she to take a registered letter in that name ? She swore she was 
 under her own name up there, and she swore she only put the name 
 of " Arnold " on her luggage, so that the railway people would not 
 know her. And yet the same woman received from the Post Office 
 letters addressed to " V. x\rnold." He (Mr. Want) would like to 
 know why Miller handed her the letter if she was not going under 
 the name of " Arnold." He left there on a Sunday. .On Tuesday, 
 the 26th, he wrote to her under the name of " Mrs. Arnold," and in
 
 322 THE COXINGHAM CASE. 
 
 a hand which no one could mistake. He could not have put those 
 documents in evidence unless he had proof prima facie that they 
 were in the hand-writing of Coningham or Mrs. Coningham. He- 
 ventured to believe there was not one of the Jury who was not just 
 as able, or who at all events did not think he was just as able, to- 
 judge for himself as any others were as to whether the hand-writing 
 was hers or not. But the experts, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Sayers, held' 
 high positions in Sydney. They had come more as a favour to Mr.. 
 Slattery and himself. They took great trouble to find out w r hose 
 writing it was. They had the opportunity of taking the letters away 
 privately by themselves, and were for hours comparing different 
 things. And if when the Jury went out of the box they still had 
 doubts about it, let them throw r it away and pay no attention to it. 
 They could use their own judgment in regard to the letter which 
 had been erased, and then he would be quite content with what they 
 said as to whether it was in their hand-writing or not. Now he 
 came to the post-card sent up two days after the " Relief." Was it not 
 strange that " Mabel " should send her 3 ? " Mabel " suddenly 
 found herself possessed of 3, which she sent to Mrs. Coningham.. 
 Two days after that she left. " 'Burwah ' not in till Sunday. Will 
 send you some on Friday. Don't think I can before. Be sure to 
 have it by Friday's mail, I will register it. No need see Mrs- 
 CD' H until next week. All will be well. Perhaps come up by 
 Sunday. Will bring up oysters and stout." He did bring some up 
 before. " Glad you can stay another week. Hope children all well. 
 
 Caught Miss F y in a trap, and the man spoilt it. Will try 
 
 again soon. She must fall in again. I will then force her hands. 
 Good bye, yours, Mabel." What Mrs. Marquet said was true. She- 
 said she had lost them, but that they would not be of much use to- 
 anyone, because they were signed " Mabel," and they were almost 
 
 in cypher. \Vho was F y in a trap ? There was first the letter 
 
 he got as soon as he came to Sydney. The next letter he sent was 
 on the 27th. It was registered, and she said she got it on the 28th. 
 That was the letter in which he enclosed ^"3, which he registered in 
 Exton's name, which Exton swore he told him he sent, which Mrs.. 
 Coningham said she received, and put away in a draw r er. " Mabel" 
 wrote, "Enclosed you will find ^ ('Burwah'). Will be up on- 
 Sunday, 1 ' and he started to go on the Sunday he went to Parra- 
 matta. " Will be with you on Sunday or Monday. Hope you are 
 all well. If it brings good luck will give you three-quarters." He 
 supposed Coningham was discounting his ^"5,000. " I hope it does.. 
 I am working night and day." W T orking with Dill-Macky ! 
 
 Petitioner : It is not fair to bring in a name like that ? 
 
 Mr. Want : I will bring Dill-Macky to his knees in regard to this Jury List 
 before I am done. 
 
 His Honor : It is a pity that the name has been brought but. 
 
 , Mr. Want: I am sorry that it has been. I will prove that this woman was 
 working with someone outside this Court in a manner that was most discredit- 
 able, and if I was a Juryman I would let Mr. Dill-Macky know something about
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 323 
 
 it. As a citizen I have a right to protest against it, for there is no greater curse 
 to the administration of Justice than that someone should attempt to interfere 
 with the purity of it 
 
 Petitioner : Only one witness stated it. 
 
 His Honor : It has been sworn to, and it has not been contradicted. 
 
 Mr. Want : I will come to that after. Did not he ask him whether he was 
 not intoxicated when he was up there ? 
 
 [Before Mr. Want resumed his address on April jst, the 
 Foreman of the Jury said : Your Honor, before proceeding I would 
 like to mention that two gentlemen on the Jury belong to the 
 Jewish Faith, and Wednesday is a sacred day with them from 6 p.m. 
 They would not like to sit that day. It is as sacred to them as our 
 Sunday. 
 
 His Honor : I will bear that in mind. I hope we will finish 
 the Case before that. 
 
 Mr. Want: I shall not be long this morning, your Honor.] 
 
 Mr. Want said the Jury would remember that when he finished 
 last Thursday he was dealing with the conspiracy portion of the 
 Case. He had since examined an exhibit containing something 
 which would show the Jury how far the Petitioner and Respondent 
 could be believed in their charge against Dr. O'Haran. They 
 would remember that in the so-called confession of the Respondent 
 dated June i3th, 1898, there was a passage to the effect that she would 
 try and work for her child, and urging him (Petitioner) not to take 
 him from her. A month after that she wrote to Miss Shiel a letter, 
 in which she said : " My husband will have to keep me always, 
 and, what is more, work for it " (the child). Did the Jury think 
 that was a letter coming from a young woman who had just con- 
 fessed to one of the most wicked sins it was possible for a woman to 
 commit. He thought the Jury would find that letter a pretty useful 
 guide in trying to ascertain who was telling the truth about that 
 alleged confession. From beginning to end the whole thing was 
 nothing more nor less than a regular plot to entrap Dr. O'Haran. 
 The Jury would remember that the Petitioner swore that in January 
 and February he was suffering so much from an injury by a 
 cricket-ball that he could not have been the father of the child 
 Vincent Francis Coningham. They would also remember that 
 Respondent said, in answer to a Juryman, that she was pregnant 
 four months before she told her husband. When Coningham 
 found a child born five months after that, he, as a chemist, or even 
 as an ordinary individual, ought to have known it could not have 
 been his child ; but did his subsequent actions show that he had any 
 suspicions in the matter ? No, on the contrary. Would he not have 
 said to his wife " Halloo, this is very funny ?" He said nothing of 
 the sort, but wrote to Miss Shiel : " My wife has asked me to drop 
 you a note to say that a fine baby boy made its appearance at 4.30 
 this morning, and, thank God, both are doing splendidly." Did the 
 Jury think a man would write that way if he thought the child was
 
 324 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 not his ? He did not stop there, for two months afterwards he re- 
 gistered the birth of the child, and certified that he was the father of 
 it. But when ^"5,000 was dangling before his eyes, the child was no- 
 longer a bouncing boy, it was no longer the child he had Registered 
 as his own, but it was the child of Dr. O'Haran, and became the 
 Petitioner's pet aversion. This all pointed conclusively to the fact 
 that this was a conspiracy from the start to the finish. With regard 
 to the attempt on the part of the Petitioner to throw mud by calling 
 Mrs. Bonner with a view of getting her to make some statement 
 derogatory to Dr. O'Haran, the Law was that such evidence could 
 not be allowed. If it had been allowed he (Mr. Want) would not be 
 permitted to call evidence, but he would have been in a position to- 
 call twenty or thirty witnesses to show what kind of woman Mrs.. 
 Bonner was. They knew what sort of a woman she was. He got 
 in at the front window whilst she got in by the back way. They 
 heard Exton swear she was there, and they had had Coningham's- 
 own admission that he went in by the front window and shut the- 
 back door. Afterwards they had fried fish and stout, and regaled 
 themselves until i or 2 o'clock in the morning. He said he did not 
 sleep in the house, but left it about 4 o'clock in the morning. Con- 
 ingham had chosen to ask those questions, but the Law would not 
 allow him.. He might just as well have brought witnesses from 
 Rome in to give evidence in the Case as to bring this woman. It 
 was his (Mr. Want's) duty and it was his Honor's function to stop 
 it, and his Honor would tell them the Law was that such evidence- 
 could not be given. He objected to the mud-throwing business, 
 which, however, might compensate Coningham for his loss of time. 
 That brought him back to the part of the conspiracy. If they be- 
 lieved it, it ought to once and for all settle the matter in their minds. 
 He had read a letter in which he said Coningham said he was going 
 to bring up oysters and stout, and that he was laying a trap for 
 Miss F . Exton had recognised the woman as Miss F . He- 
 acknowledged that he knew her by another name, but he had proved 
 in Court that she was one and the same ^person. He (Mr. Want) 
 had not asked Exton about it. It came out in cross-examination 
 what was in the letter, and it turned out to be apparently true. He 
 wrote the letter to his wife about the lady and the trap, and Extoi* 
 in Court had declared that the trap was laid, but that it did not suc- 
 ceed. Exton's statement was corroborated by the letter, and the 
 letter had corroborated Exton's, placing beyond doubt the writing of 
 these letters from and to " Mr." and " Mrs. Arnold." Because, if they 
 believed the four postal officials, Coningham was constantly in the 
 habit of receiving letters in the name of "Arnold " up to the middle of 
 January. When he stated he did not receive them he had stated a 
 deliberate untruth. If he told an untruth in regard to that matter it 
 was also fair to assume that he would tell an untruth in regard to 
 another matter. That correspondence was the tail-end of the con- 
 spiracy. 'Having got the letters he (Mr. Want) was in a position to 
 be able to follow them. He had carefully kept back the " You
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 
 
 325 
 
 deny the Arnold letter." He had not cross-examined about 
 that the first day, because had he done so Coningham would 
 have been able to send a letter to his wife telling her that he 
 had the letters. His wife went into the box next morning, 
 and it was not until Coningham had asked her every question 
 contained in the letter that he (Mr. Want) had cross-examined her 
 on it. They had the fact that he asked his wife all the questions 
 mentioned in the letter, and she gave the stipulated answers. The 
 real fact was that Exton got the letter from Mrs. Coningham, but 
 instead of delivering it to him he handed it over to Proctor, and in 
 that way it got h-:o his (Mr. Want's) hands. Exton did not let 
 Coningham know that he had got the letter, but he let him know 
 everything that was in it. Not knowing that he (Mr. Want) had 
 the letter, Coningham asked his wife every question in it. He 
 would refer back to the words contained in the letter, and the 
 answers given by Mrs. Coningham in the box to her husband. 
 " Enclosed you will find ^"3. Will be up on Sunday or Monday." 
 They would remember that he did go up on Sunday. " If it brings 
 good luck will give you three-quarters. Am working night and day. 
 If I bring up some more oysters and stout, will you shout ? Love 
 to all the children. Ever yours, Mabel." This was a funny sort of 
 Divorce Case. A man petitioning for a- divorce and claiming ^"5,000 
 damages writes to his wife in that way. He (Petitioner) had called 
 the letter a forgery, and had put questions to the experts about 
 copying the letter in two or three months. The date of the post- 
 cards was February syth and 28th, and they were read to him on 
 March 8th. He (Mr. Want) did not know where the three months 
 came in. The letters were in the Post Office on February 2jih and 
 28th, and they were produced in Court, and she was cross-examined 
 and he was cross-examined on them on the first one or two days of 
 the Trial. His object in putting that before the Jury in showing 
 what was written in those letters was to show the way in which 
 Coningham had fallen into the trap, also the way in which they 
 were both putting their heads together, and endeavouring by 
 perjury of the worst character to induce the Jury to give an improper 
 verdict. Simply because she had gone there and brazened the thing 
 out he thought he could deceive the Jury. If they thought of the 
 two or three months, it was not a question of forgery at all. For- 
 tunately for Dr. O'Haran, Coningham, not knowing that he (Mr. 
 Want) had got letters, asked all the questions he was told to ask, 
 and she gave the very answers she told him she would give. That 
 was the letter which Exton swore to, and which the experts swore 
 was in Coningham's hand- writing. Exton swore Mrs. Coningham 
 gave it to him. What took place in Court ? Coningham asked 
 her how she was dressed. She said she was dressed in a moss- 
 green velvet. That was what was precisely in the letter. " He 
 gave me a harp on St. Patrick's night in a box ; the nuns made it 
 for him. Ask me how do I know." And so it continued, and she 
 gave the ver^ -eplies contained in that letter. " The number of the
 
 326 THE CONl.N'GHAM CASE. 
 
 cabby is 999. You know his name. He has two or three vehicles. 
 If you deny the Arnold letter and post-card so will I." It was a 
 very funny thing that Coningham knew all about this. " I will say 
 the writing is something like yours. I kept the ^"3." That was 
 exactly what she said in her evidence. "Taylor, telephone 514. I 
 will be there at 9.45 in the morning if you want me to strike the 
 Jury. Am sending priscription." There was Exton telling the 
 truth again. He had sworn to them that he got the Jury List, that 
 it was given him by the Rev. Dill-Macky, that there were twenty 
 Lists to be sent around, and that the names of the Jurymen who had 
 been got at were on the Lists. Exton carried out his instructions. 
 Mrs. Coningham went down to Taylor's office, and someone else 
 telephoned the names of those who were either good or bad for her. 
 It seemed in this matter that something more than Dr. O'Haran was 
 on its trial. Trial by Jury was on its trial, and the administration 
 of justice was on its trial if Exton was to be believed. Then they 
 saw that he, Coningham, had actually got that document. He (Mr. 
 Want) intended to leave all this out. of the Case, but uhen he found 
 that there was not a common agreement between them in regard to 
 those letters, then he thought there must be some influence in their 
 minds and he determined to call Exton, who swore the List was 
 taken away, that it was shown to this lady with certain marks and 
 crosses on, and that certain Jurymen were all right. She then fixed 
 on the office and said in one letter, "Taylor, telephone 514. I will 
 be there at 9.45 if you want me to strike a Jury.' : She was coming 
 to the Court to "strike" a Jury. That meant that instead of being 
 able to "strike" six, the Petitioner could " strike " twelve. What did 
 Mrs. Coningham do ? Was all that a lie ? There was the paper 
 before them. It spoke for itself. Those gentlemen had not come 
 into Court and denied it. If they had come perhaps he (Mr. W 7 ant) 
 had something more for them something more unpleasant. He 
 did not intend to let it rest whichever way the verdict went, but he 
 wanted to keep the matter out of the Case. She said she never 
 went there and wanted him to "strike" a Jury. The very List 
 with the names on was given her, and with the audacity of despair 
 she actually produced this List in Court and had handed it over to 
 the Petitioner, who said that he did not want the Jury to see it. Mr. 
 Dowling swore that she did go down to him, and that she asked him 
 to come up to Court and assist her to " strike " the Jury. Mr. 
 Dowling said he could not do it that he would not be mixed up in 
 the Case. Then she stated she was afraid she was going to be late. 
 With regard to this matter he had only one word to say. They 
 remembered him asking the Petitioner to produce a copy of the 
 document which was upon the table. Neither Mr. Ralston nor 
 himself were upon oath, but he did say it was there. Did Coningham 
 swear at once, " I never had it ?" Not a bit of it. He took up his 
 papers and began playing with them to see if he had got the docu- 
 ment. Whilst he was fiddling with ! ' ; papers for ten minutes he 
 was no doubt making up his mind as to whether he would go into
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 327 
 
 the box and swear he never had it. He never denied it at once, 
 lie merely said, " These papers were all here yesterday." They 
 .could see at once that instead of fooling with his papers the 
 Petitioner should have answered at once, " I never had it." The 
 Jury was not to be guided by what Mr, Ralston and himself had 
 told them. They must judge by Coningham's actions. If Coning - 
 ham had a copy of the List then Exton was right in saying that 
 about twenty copies of it were distributed. No one could blame 
 Coningham if he got a copy of the Jury List and picked out names 
 in his own mind, of course, but he had no right to go and see a 
 Juryman. What did he do? When the Rev. Dill-Macky was 
 sitting there in solemn conclave writing out the Lists and sending 
 them away to this woman well he would say it was the most 
 unpleasant part of the Case, but he felt he would be shirking his 
 -duty and making himself a coward if he was afraid to take it up. In 
 her letter Mrs. Coningham further said, " I never was with Dr. 
 O'Haran on the afternoon ' Zero' speaks of." No. She swore she 
 did not know who " Zero " was. She said she had seen the name 
 in the paper. " But on those identical nights at half-past 7. Cabby 
 says 4 a mistake. My dress was green velvet and embossed." In 
 the box she said moss-green velvet. On the night of the " Geisha" 
 she said she was in evening-dress. Mr. Coningham seemed to know 
 what nights "Zero" spoke of. There was a letter from him in 
 which he stated he was disappointed at not seeing " Zero," " I 
 suppose he was afraid to meet me in the daylight." At all events 
 her evidence in regard to the dress bore out the letter when she 
 stated she was dressed in dark green. It was St. Patrick's night 
 they got into that fix last time. She said the cabby was 999 and he 
 (Mr. Want) supposed that if it had not been for the little develop- 
 ments in the Case as published in the paper, there is not the 
 slightest doubt a cabby would have turned up and that he would 
 have sworn he took her to the Cathedral. She wanted to get Mr. 
 Coningham to fix up the cabby who had said the time was 4 o'clock. 
 
 [His Honor : I think you will see that must refer to March lyth, 
 because the hour fixed there is 7.30, and the hour fixed for April ist 
 and 3oth was in the afternoon, before 6.] 
 
 Mr. Want : Mrs. Coningham had stated a dressmaker had 
 brought her a dress to go somewhere in. She sent the dressmaker 
 out for a cab, so that if the cabby had turned up and he (Mr. Want) 
 did not have that letter, Dr. O'Haran would have found himself in 
 a nice fix. Again ! Now she continued, " Ask me about Miss ShiePs 
 
 letters. Write F anonymous telling her if she goes against 
 
 Con., you" (the writer) " will expose her doings." That was what 
 Exton had explained. They were to get a declaration from this 
 
 F , and if she did not do it she would be exposed. " Don't be 
 
 forgetting, and don't be doing wrong and apologising." Was that 
 not what Coningham had been doing all through the Trial ? "Serve 
 letters to produce on O'H and the Cardinal. Also my letters to
 
 328 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 O'H." The Jury would remember that Coningham did serve those 
 letters to produce. " Get them at any cost," she said in her letter. If 
 his Client had forged these letters surely instead of putting all that rub- 
 bish in them he would have put in something worth having. " Don't be 
 so willing not to object. Don't let my letters to Miss Shiel go in in 
 evidence." She knew very well that the letter about baptising the 
 child would go against her, and that instead of her being able to re- 
 present to the Court how a happy home would be broken up, was 
 broken up, the true picture was contained in the letters. The happi- 
 ness was suggested by Coningham getting in at the front window 
 while that woman was getting in at the back door. That was the 
 happy home that was being broken up. She also wrote, " To tell 
 you the truth, I don't know what I wrote this afternoon. It was 
 risky." It certainly was risky ! Here was a prophetic utterance : 
 " I could not deny my hand-writing. They may make me do it." 
 That was what he (Mr. Want) did. She wrote from his (Mr. Want's) 
 dictation a sentence containing the three words " adultry," " apolo- 
 gisng," and " priscription." They were all spelled wrong, and just as 
 they were spelled in the evidence she wrote in Court.- The Jury, 
 when comparing the " Arnold" letter-card, and the telegram to Mr. 
 Miller, could see conclusively that they were written by Petitioner, 
 notwithstanding he said he never wrote them, whilst his wife said 
 she never knew from whom the letter-cards came. It was conclu- 
 sively proved by the Postal and Telegraph Officers that the letters 
 were delivered to her. With regard to the tattoo-mark, Mrs. Mar- 
 quet said Mrs. Coningham told her that a Catholic priest told her 
 Dr. O'Haran had a tattoo-mark on his body, but that she was afraid 
 to say anything in the witness-box about it, as she might " fall in." 
 When under examination, Mrs. Coningham wished the Jury to 
 believe that Dr. O'Haran told her he had a tattoo-mark, but that for 
 decency's sake he did not show it to her. As a matter of fact a priest 
 did tell Mrs. Coningham that Dr. O'Haran had a tattoo-mark on his 
 person, but it was a small cross on his wrist, which could be seen 
 when he was writing. He (Mr. Want) put the Case that the charge 
 was a false one, and that the Co-respondent had proved to the satis- 
 faction of every man in the community that it was a false charge, 
 because he had produced sixty witnesses who had sworn absolutely 
 and directly in the teeth of Mrs. Coningham. In conclusion, he left 
 Dr. O'Haran in the hands of the Jury, feeling perfectly confident it 
 would protect him from attacks of this kind. If he was guilty of 
 this offence he ought to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, and sent 
 down to a dishonest grave. But if Dr. O'Haran was innocent of the 
 charge, his name should be written in letters of gold, and he should 
 receive the thanks of the community for having the courage to face 
 a black-mailing conspiracy, to which any respectable man might be 
 subjected if such things were allowed to go on with impunity. Dr. 
 O'Haran came down from his high position as a great dignitary of 
 the Church of Rome, and stood before them with all the courage of 
 a man who was not afraid of the fierce light that beats upon a throne.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 329* 
 
 He came before them with a courage and heroism equal to the man 
 on the battle-field who performed a deed that won the Victoria Cross. 
 He came before them, and, standing with his back to a rock, said : 
 " Go on. My whole life is exposed to you. I will not shield myself 
 by giving you a few hundred pounds." Dr. O'Haran knew that the 
 fountains of Justice would still run as freely and as purely as they 
 had ever run in the past, notwithstanding that some people in the 
 past had tried to come here and interfere with it. He (Mr. Want) 
 ventured to hope that the whole world would know that when black- 
 mailers 'tried these tricks there came between them and their victims 
 an honest, fearless, and courageous English Jury to decide between 
 them. 
 
 THE PETITIONER'S ADDRESS TO THE JURY. 
 
 The Petitioner said that the Jury must have seen the great 
 difference that existed between his position and that of the Co- 
 respondent. Friendless, penniless, and practically alone, he had to 
 conduct his Suit, whilst the Co-respondent had been assisted by the 
 ablest Counsel at the Bar, and by myriads of parasites at his- 
 beck and call, eager to do his bidding. . . . The anguish 
 of mind and body he had suffered since he had discovered 
 the Co-respondent's adultery had been such that he prayed 
 to God no other mortal would have to endure the like. Before 
 he discovered this priest's iniquity he was a happy man, a 
 happy father, and a husband who prided himself on his wife's 
 devotion and purity, but now they saw him a miserable wreck of his 
 former self, struggling against such heavy odds that the Jury never 
 in their lives saw before. What did he know of Law ? It was the 
 second time he had ever been in a Court of Law. If, as Mr. Want 
 said, he (Petitioner) was a black-mailer, would he have come there 
 a second time to face the ordeal of cross-examination in the hope of 
 getting a verdict ? He came there for Justice, and he sincerely 
 hoped he would get it. He stood there bereft of all that made life 
 endurable, and where was the cause of all that misery, a wolf in 
 sheep's clothing a priest of God ? No, a priest of the Devil ! (The 
 Petitioner here added a curse upon the Co-respondent). 
 
 [His Honor : There must be some limit to this language. 
 Mr. Want : It is all " oysters and stout." 
 
 Petitioner : I ask your Honor to protect me from Mr. Want's 
 interference. 
 
 His Honor : But you must not use such language here.] 
 
 Petitioner said he cared nothing for the Co-respondent's money. 
 He would not contaminate himself by touching it, because he swore 
 that if the Jury aware" Jamages he would ask them to so fix the 
 damages that no power on earth could touch them until his children 
 became of age. Counsel for the Co-respondent had tried everything 
 in his power, assisted with unlimited money, to bring people here to- 
 swear away his (Petitioner's) life. In fact, he -was on his trial, and
 
 330 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 not the Co-respondent. It was all very well for Mr. Want to tell 
 the Jury that if it had a shadow of doubt, to give the Co-respondent 
 the benefit of that doubt. That might be Law, but it was not 
 Justice. It was all very well in Criminal Cases, where if the Jury 
 gave the benefit of the doubt to the prisoner, no one would suffer, 
 but if they gave the Co-respondent the benefit of the doubt on this 
 occasion, who suffered? He (the Petitioner) would be the sufferer, 
 because he would immediately be arrested for conspiracy. Not only 
 would he be robbed of his wife, but he would also have his. liberty 
 taken away. He could not, like the other side, employ an army of 
 private detectives. He had to seek out his own evidence shadowed 
 by the thieves, sharks, and detectives employed by the other side. 
 But they never could get one item against him, and were compelled 
 to manufacture it. When he got a witness he had to hold on to him 
 or to her, chain him or her up, and k3ep the key, because the wolves 
 of the other side were after them. They had searched all Australia 
 to find out something shady about his life, but had failed to do so. 
 It was all very well for Mr. Want to say that he (Petitioner) was 
 clever. He was forced to be so. The secret of it was that he was 
 telling the truth. Was there anything to show that he had been a 
 black-mailer ? Did a black-mailer go to extremes? What were his 
 actions? Intimidation? Could they find one solitary item of 
 intimidation against him ? Cardinal Moran said that immediately 
 he received his (Petitioner's) letter he knew it was a conspiracy. If 
 that letter had been produced the Jury would never have allowed 
 the Case to go on. . . . He came now to a matter of very gra^ve 
 importance not only to himself but to the gentleman named by the 
 opposing Counsel. He wished to clear up an accusation made 
 against the gentleman referred to. He was referring to the Rev. 
 Dill-Macky. His name had been brought out in a scandalous 
 manner because that gentleman had assisted him by allowing him 
 .to remain at his house. 
 
 [Mr. Ralston said he must object to anything outside the Case. 
 Petitioner : I am quoting actual facts. 
 
 His Honor : Unless the facts are proved in this Case you 
 cannot refer to them. If you want to say anything about anybody 
 you must confine yourself to the evidence before the Court.] 
 
 THE CHAMELEON CRICKETER. 
 
 There is no need to reproduce the whole of the Petitioner's Ad- 
 
 dress to the Jury. It was on the whole a rather clever performance. 
 
 Coningham's absence from the stage must be considered a partial 
 
 eclipse of the gaiety of nations. The fellow is a born actor, with a 
 
 lot of the shrewdness of a Bow Street practitioner for clients culled 
 
 from Ratcliffe Highway and the dubious purlieus of Sh >reditch. 
 
 He made no bones about the real inspiration of the Case. Coning- 
 
 ham was a lever in the hands of Sectarian Bigotry, and the alleged 
 
 .adultery was the fulcrum from which it was sought to considerably
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 331 
 
 move the Church founded by St. Peter. During his vituperative 
 attack upon the Co-respondent, he said, with a candour as imprudent 
 as it was impudent : " In this Case religion played a very prominent 
 part. // WHS not Coningham versus O' Haran. It nvas Coningham 
 versus the Roman Church!" He was specially pathetic in touching 
 on Mr. "Want's references to the Rev. Dill-Macky in "getting at the 
 Jury"; entered upon a vehement defence of the Respondent more 
 in the style of an ardent lover than an injured husband ; and made 
 as vehement an attack upon the evidence of Messrs. Exton and 
 Langton. In dealing with the alleged "questionable expression," 
 which Coningham knew, and which Mr. Want extorted from the 
 Respondent in "writing, the Petitioner became subtle and self-gratu- 
 latory. Then he wheeled back again into the vocabulary of the 
 slums, and wasted foul epithets and vile adjectives in the denuncia- 
 tion of Dr. O'Haran ; opened up a long digression on the paternity 
 of the little, unoffending Vincent Francis; and tried to explain away 
 his m. slakes with regard to the medical treatment of himself, and his 
 own action in signing the child's certificate of birth. Pathetically 
 did the Petitioner bewail his repeated and disastrous losses of legal 
 aid, and wept internal tears that the charge, the false charge, of con- 
 spiracy should have been hurled at "so honourable a man" as him- 
 self. Loudly to scorn, then, he laughed the Counsel's remarks con- 
 cerning the finding of the photograph of the Co-respondent in his 
 (Petitioner's) wife's chest of drawers. The man had as many moods 
 as a dying dolphin colours. Neither was he bashful ! His dissertation 
 on his own courage was an oration worth listening to. The whole 
 Address was highly entertaining, and the interest was kept up by 
 intervals of vocal fusillade between Counsel and Petitioner, assisted 
 by brief interjections from the Judge. Very bitter, too, was Coning- 
 ham anent the mordant remarks made by the burly King's Counsel 
 concerning " Dear Jim " and " Dear Fred." The " Necklet Incident" 
 stirred him to weird emotional depths, and the question of the authen- 
 ticity of the letters unsealed vials of bitterest sarcasm. Of course, 
 the gifted all-round cricketer eulogised his hand-writing experts, the 
 while casting a wholesale innuendo on those of the " Other Side." 
 Then, with a remarkable movement, known in military parlance as- 
 an advance in eschelon, he broke into the mighty field of mytho- 
 logical invention, and characterised the " Cab 999 " mystic number 
 as one of the many Sun myths that have exercised the brains of 
 savants for seven centuries only Coningham didn't put it that way- 
 He had seen the monster stand, radiant with varnish and glittering 
 with nickel-plate, outside Mr. Want's office. This gave occasion for 
 a brisk flank attack on the part of the Senior Counsel for the De- 
 fence which had, by this time, developed into an assault in column. 
 The occult name " Zero" crept, like an Orient magian, into the woof 
 of the evidence, wielding a cabalistic significance as a wand of 
 potency, and Coningham gingerly fringed it with a trepidation born 
 of abysmal ignorance. In the process of his Address, or explanation, 
 or whatever one likes to call it, the Petitioner attempted an explica-
 
 33 2 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 tion of the faery-bestowal of three pounds sterling it was labour, 
 Ixion-like, and swirled round as a wheel whose disc tried the eye- 
 . sight. That breezy agriculturist, " Captain Smith," next came in 
 for a Coninghamian treatment with disastrous blows that fell like 
 the flappings of a butterfly's wings upon that doughty mariner's 
 .bronzed hide. Next, " The Relief of ' Burrilda ' ' name now of 
 historic moment was the theme of this most interested and interest- 
 ing of annalists. It was, said the cricketer, a terrible thing, were 
 it true; but, as a matter of fact, it was a figment composed of 
 nothingness. Splendid self-abnegation ! Coningham left " Burrilda" 
 to declare that of the loot not one penny of "5,000 would he take. 
 Let it go to the children, let it go to Charity, let it go to the Devil, for 
 all he cared. He wanted to bleed this man, and he could touch him 
 only, marsupial-fashion, through the pocket. (Mirabile dictu'. Mistaken 
 Cricketer !) Chivalry has had its Galahads, and Orangeism has its 
 Coninghams ! With keen, glittering tongue-sword of eloquence the 
 Petitioner defended the gifted, glorious champion of July's Twelfth 
 Day. Why did not the " Other Side" subpoena the Rev. W. M. 
 Dill-Macky ? and Echo answered " Why ?" But the non-admission 
 of Mrs. Bonner's evidence was the Petitioner's standing grievance. 
 To this he reverted again and again and on each successive occa- 
 sion with a rising, boiling wrath, punctuated with semicolons of 
 .maudlin sorrow. Near the climax of a spasm of emotional objurga- 
 tion, " Conny" plunged, without preliminary warning, into the St. 
 Patrick's Concert. But here he was not at home. The Fates were 
 too big to handle. Like a decent fellow, who sticks to his friends, 
 the Petitioner made passing reference to Judge Simpson, and praised 
 that puissant partisan with a sweet and edifying deference. Then 
 came the eternal appeal, adniisericordiam, to the jury, which showed 
 that Coningham was but a lily-livered creature after all. " If they 
 gave it" (the verdict) "in favour of the Co-respondent, it prac- 
 tically meant that they said he (Dr. O'Haran) was innocent. Who 
 would suffer under those circumstances ? He (Petitioner); because 
 he would be tried for conspiracy ! It was black enough gulf to be 
 separated from his wife and children, but worse still to be deprived 
 of his liberty !" Ye Gods ! " Separated from his wife !" and this 
 is an injured husband! At this most merciful moment the shades 
 -of eve prevailed, and the adjournment of the Court shut off the over- 
 flow of the Petitioner's eloquence. The following morning, how- 
 ever, Coningham was again at the wickets ! He opened play by 
 excessive and bad-tasteful abuse of Extori, and a, perhaps, forgivable 
 pride in his wife as a witness of thrice-tried brass. But; he could not 
 help harking back to the allegation of that fair delinquent's drunken- 
 ness at the historic " Relief of ' Burrilda.' " Perhaps he had some 
 inverted pride in the affair who knows ? But at this juncture he 
 made one of those Zulu half-moon movements, which so bewildered 
 the Aldershot generals who had to cope with the man with the 
 assegai. The Petitioner went into an exhaustive and learned exposi- 
 tion of the ethics of forgery and the methods of forgers. Everybody
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 333 
 
 was amazed at the cricketer's remarkable erudition; but they 
 stared blankly at one another, and enquired, like the gentleman in- 
 terested in the operatic flowers that bloom in the spring, what possible 
 relation had this with the Case, tra-la-la ! Leaving this interesting sub- 
 ject, Coningham made a subtle and insidious attack on the Cardinal, 
 which, however, while giving no pleasure to anyone, failed to cut ice, 
 and brought both " alligator " and allegation to a full-stop in the 
 feculent mire of mere stagnant verbiage. Of course, Coningham had 
 to drag in the Dean Case ; although, probably, Coningham is the 
 only man in the community who appreciates the analogy. "Wolves 
 .and sharks !" This is a figure of speech one of Coningham's, and 
 was applied to the Popes, Prelates, and Priests of the Holy Roman 
 Catholic Church. But let it pass ! Charity is large, and suffereth 
 much ! The Petitioner was incredulous regarding rebuttal oi evi- 
 dence concerning the tattoo-mark alleged; but then he laid, always 
 well and ably, to his little book. He said, with a bump^.^usness 
 born of reminiscences of cricket-field applause, " That Dr. O'Haran 
 -would remember him to his dying day !" No doubt the Doctor will 
 do so; but, then, there are remembrances and remembrances! 
 Coningham was, however, an especially vicious person. He bounced 
 and bullied everybody. His attacks on the Delivery Clerks of the 
 General Post Office were a disgrace to any legal proceedings in a 
 civilized land ! Thus the Petitioner : " The third boy said, ' I think 
 Mr. Coningham called ' r letters in answer to an advertisement 
 under the name of ' Arnold.' He had gone through the papers to 
 see if he had advertised under the name of ' Arnold.' When the boy 
 had mentioned that circumstance he felt the cold creep over him be- 
 cause he felt that something may have occurred under that name. 
 Arnold was the family name of his mother !" Poor Lady ! But let 
 us be more than just ; let us be generous, and allow the Petitioner 
 to wind up his weary wail of woe in his own words : 
 
 " The Jury knew the grave duty it had to perform If they brought in a 
 verdict for the Co-respondent they could easily see the magnitude of his own 
 sufferings. It was not only the sufferings he had gone through, not the loss of 
 his \sife and his children, but it was the loss of his liberty On the other hand, 
 if he got the benefit oi any doubt that existed in the minds of the Jury, one man 
 would suffef , and it would be a lesson to the world a bitter lesson, so that those 
 people would not be trusted so much, as his wife had trusted them. He only 
 asked for a fair and unbiassed verdict. They must not judge the whole of the 
 Case by one or two little errors. If they did that, he could pick errors out of the 
 Co-respondent's witnesses one after the other. He would ask them as men of the 
 world, and as fathers of families, to look deep into the issues before they arrived 
 at a decision, and he trusted the Almighty would help them in coming to a deci- 
 sion, as He had helped him to fight the Case. He trusted they would so punish 
 that man that it would deter others like him from luring women away from their 
 homes. At the same time they must not forget that he had the courage and the 
 temerity to go there and try to get justice for an injustice that had been done. 
 The Co-respondent had been able to go back years into his life, but he was not 
 able to go back into Dr. O'Haran's life. Had he been able to do so he would have 
 brought forward evidence that would have literally paralysed them." 
 
 [Mr. Want: I object to this. He is referring to Mrs. Bonner. 
 
 His Honor: The evidence of Mrs. Bonner was clearly inadmissible.]
 
 334 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 * 
 
 Petitioner said he would ask the Jury to consider whether he was likely to be 
 a man who would black-mail anybody. The way the Case had been conducted 
 against him would not bear daylight. If the Co-respondent were innocent why 
 should they bring such filthy stuff as they had before the Court ? He would 
 leave his Case to the Jury. 
 
 HIS HONOR'S SUMMING UP. 
 
 His Honor then summed up. He said no Case within his 
 recollection had excited so much public interest as this one had, 
 It had been twice before the Court, and on each occasion all the 
 evidence had been published in the newspapers, and he had no- 
 doubt that outside the Court it had been from time to time, and from 
 day to day, a matter of general comment. Unfortunately, too, in 
 this Case the question of religion had been raised, and feeling had 
 undoubtedly been excited and exasperated by reason of the question 
 that had arisen in the Case. He must most earnestly ask them to 
 discard from their mind everything they had heard outside- the 
 Court, not only what they had heard, but what they may have read 
 in the former trial. They had a good deal new in the evidence 
 before them. A part of the evidence in the last trial had been made 
 evidence in this trial. The other parts they must discard from their 
 minds, and deal with the Case solely on the facts which had been 
 sworn to in that particular Case. The Jury was the sole judge of 
 the question of fact. It held in respect of facts in this a position 
 higher than he did higher than did any Judge of the Supreme 
 Court. He had no right to interfere with their decision as to the 
 facts of the Case, and he was quite certain they would bring to the 
 consideration of the Case the same fearless independence and the 
 same absolute impartiality between man and man, and party and 
 party, that any Judge of the Court would give if the Case came 
 before him. The matter came before them in a form that was 
 somewhat unusual. It was not merely a question between Plaintiff 
 and Defendant. It appeared that the Petitioner presented a petition 
 to the Divorce Court praying for a dissolution of his marriage with his 
 wife, and also praying for damages on account of the adultery which 
 was the ground for asking for the divorce, and the Act provided 
 that where the party asked for damages and not merely for a 
 divorce the matter must come before a Jury. Accordingly the 
 Divorce Court had sent down four issues to the Jury. The first 
 was the issue of marriage whether the Petitioner was married to 
 the Respondent on the nth March, 1893. Upon that issue there 
 was no dispute. That they would, of course, answer in the affirma- 
 tive. The fourth issue was the question of damages. That, of 
 course, depended upon whether there was adultery or not. The rest 
 of the issues they had to try were the second and third, or really in 
 point of fact they were one issue -whether the Respondent between 
 June 1 5th, 1898, and September 3Oth, 1899, committed adultery with 
 Denis Francis O' Haran, the Co-respondent, at St. Mary's Cathedral and 
 buildings adjacent thereto ; the third was whether the Co-respondent 
 between the same dates' committed adultery with the Respondent-
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 335 
 
 There were two issues which at first sight were difficult to under- 
 stand, because an ordinary layman would suppose that when the 
 Co-respondent committed adultery with her, she must have com- 
 mitted adultery with him. It was put that way on account of the 
 rules of evidence. There might be evidence to show the Respondent 
 was guilty of adultery with a particular person, but the evidence 
 might not be evidence against that particular person. Although 
 they might find that the Respondent was guilty with the Co- 
 respondent, they could not on that evidence find that the Co- 
 respondent was guilty with her. Take the case of an admission 
 made by a Respondent behind the back of the Co-respondent. It 
 would be monstrous if a man could be found guilty of adultery 
 because some woman behind his back stated he had committed 
 adultery. In some Cases the Court was able to hold that the 
 Respondent had committed adultery with the Co-respondent, 
 although there was no evidence against him to show that he had 
 committed adultery. But that question did not arise in that Case, 
 because Mrs. Coningham had given her evidence on oath, and what- 
 ever evidence she had given was evidence they would have to 
 consider in dealing with the Case both as regards her and the 
 Co-respondent. That being the issue, they had really now to look 
 at the evidence. That was the only matter they had now to consider 
 to look into the evidence, and consider whether it proved that 
 Mrs. Coningham and Dr. O'Haran on the dates and in the places 
 where she alleges committed adultery. This question of conspiracy 
 and the question of hand-writing which had taken up so much of the 
 time were merely incidental mere matters that threw light on the 
 question of adultery. The question of adultery, as Mr. Want, 
 quoting from a very eminent English Judge, said, is a charge very 
 easily made and very hard to prove, and for this simple reason that 
 in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred there was no person present, 
 and they only had the statement of the person who laid the charge, 
 and the denial of the person against whom it was brought. In nine 
 cases out of ten it was exceedingly difficult for the parties to 
 determine on which side the proof lay. In determining these issues, 
 the onus lay with the Petitioner to prove to their satisfaction that 
 adultery was committed on the dates mentioned. If he proved it, 
 well and good. If he failed to prove it altogether, their answer 
 would be in the negative. But if he left it in doubt, if having 
 the onus thrown upon him of satisfying their minds firmly that 
 adultery had been committed at certain times and places if he 
 failed to satisfy their minds, to remove doubt from their minds on 
 the subject, then their answer must be in the negative ; that was to 
 say, that the Petitioner had failed to prove the adultery. But in 
 coming to that conclusion there must not be any vague, floating 
 doubt passing through their minds. It must be a reasonable doubt 
 after they had carefully sifted all the evidence and weighed all the 
 arguments of Counsel, and what he (his Honor) suggested for their 
 consideration. If after all that they were unable to say on which 
 
 \v
 
 336 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 side the balance turned, then they must return an answer to those 
 issues in the negative. But he was quite sure that in a Case of that 
 kind, involving as it did interests which were of some importance 
 certainly to the parties themselves, they would be slow to arrive at 
 a conclusion of that kind that they would try by carefully sifting 
 the evidence to arrive at a definite answer one way or the other, was 
 the adultery committed or was it not committed. He had pointed 
 out the difficulty which arose in most Cases in dealing with evidence 
 of adultery. In that Case they had practically the uncorroborated 
 statement of Mrs. Coningham alone. He said practically uncor- 
 roborated, because he was going- to refer them to the evidence 
 which was called by the Pe'u.ioner in the first instance. He called 
 the sister of Mrs. Coningham, Mrs. Bostock, who confirmed her in 
 two matters to which lie would draw their attention presently. He 
 then called the witness O'Brien, the boy, who gave evidence of what 
 took place on July 3rd, 1899, that \\ as a year after July 3rd on which 
 it was said adultery was committed. That was the occasion on 
 which the message was sent to Dr. O'Haran by the boy O'Brien. 
 
 [Mr. Want : It was on December agth, your Honor.] 
 
 His Honor said he had July 3rd down, but it did not matter. If 
 every person was to be shown to have committed adultery because 
 he was asked to go down-stairs to see a baby, and because he said 
 he would go down soon and see the baby, it would be hard on 
 clergymen, who from their duties were thrown very largely among 
 mothers. They had to teach these children, they had to catechise 
 them, and to look after them. If every time a priest was asked to 
 see a baby, and he said he would go down and see it, he was to be 
 charged with committing adultery, he thought it would be rather 
 hard upon the priest. However, that was a matter entirely for the 
 Jury. As far as O'Brien was concerned, that was the only cor- 
 roboration he gave. Then Mr. Coningham certainly with courage, 
 and perhaps they might doubt with discretion, called Cardinal 
 Moran. He gave positive evidence not in confirmation of what 
 Mrs. Coningham said, but in positive denial of every question that 
 was put bearing upon this question of Mrs. Coningham and Dr. 
 O'Haran. Not only was there no corroboration as far as the 
 evidence went, but it bore out the evidence for the Co-respondent. 
 Then there was a fourth witness, the boy Walsh, and he thought the 
 only thing he said was that there were eight or nine steps instead 
 of seventeen. He was only at the Cathedral for a short time, and 
 he said he left it in March, 1898, so that he must have left the 
 Cathedral before the events which they had to consider transpired, 
 for the adultery was alleged to have taken place between June i5th, 
 1898, and September 3Oth, 1899. Therefore, the witness Walsh 
 might be left on one side. The only other confirmation was the evi- 
 dence of Mrs. Bostock. So far as July 3rd was concerned Mrs. Bostock 
 bore out Mrs. Coningham, inasmuch as Mrs. Coningham said she 
 gathered from the music that the Co-respondent was absent part of
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 337 
 
 the time from Vespers, and also whilst they were preparing for the 
 Procession. They must give what weight they liked to that piece of 
 evidence. There was nothing else in her evidence. She did not see 
 the Respondent and Co-respondent together. But she noticed that 
 he was late for dressing the Cardinal. To that extent there was 
 corroboration. His Honor read from his notes the evidence given 
 by Mrs. Bostock in reference to a statement alleged to have been 
 made by the Co-respondent to the effect that he would put Mrs. Con- 
 ingham into a convent if the Petitioner went to England with a 
 cricket team. Dr. O'Haran distinctly denied that. He drew their 
 attention to those matters because they were the only matters, as 
 far as his memory served him and he had read the evidence very 
 <;irefully they were the only matters in which there was any corro- 
 boration of the statements of Mrs. Coningham. With that exception 
 there was no corroboration of Mrs. Coningham. Then the question 
 arose whether they believed Mrs. Coningham's evidence as to those 
 occasions of adultery. The only way they could test evidence of 
 fiat kind where it was uncorroborated was by fixing a particular 
 date and a particular spot where the adultery was committed, and 
 then test it by the evidence outside to see if it was true. That had 
 been done in this Case in three instances, if not four. He said if 
 not four because at the last trial one date was fixed, and fixed posi- 
 tively, June 2gth, as a day upon which certain improper liberties 
 were taken. At the last trial a large number of witnesses were 
 brought down to prove an alibi to prove that on that occasion the 
 Co-respondent was a long way from Sydney dining with some friends. 
 When the Case came on again Mrs. Coningham said, " But I made 
 .a mistake about June 2gth it should have been July ist." That 
 was the first question. That was one of the differences that distin- 
 guished the Case now before them and the Case formerly tried. On 
 the former occasion nothing was said of April 3oth and April ist. 
 They were never mentioned. But in the present Case both those 
 -dates were brought in. They had new dates, new occasions, and a 
 large amount of evidence had baen given in reference to April 3oth, 
 which was really the most important of the two dates, because Mrs. 
 Coningham said in reference to April ist that there was no impro- 
 priety on that occasion, although they met at a certain hour. Evi- 
 dsnce had been given to show that he was away at Lewisham, and 
 i i reference to April 3oth, evidence had been given to show that he 
 was away at Waitara. The next date she fixed that was the date 
 o i which she said the seduction took place was July 3rd. The first 
 thing they would have to consider was whether July 3rd was the 
 date which the parties intended to fix at all. The written confession 
 had been put in evidence. In that confession she said the seduction 
 took place on July 3rd. The word " July" and the word " 3rd " was 
 alleged by Mr. Want to have been written over an erasure. What 
 that actual erasure was there wa% of course no means of knowing 
 that was to say there was no means of knowing what the word erased 
 was. There was no definite means of knowing from the document
 
 338 THE COXINGHAM CASE. 
 
 itself. No examination would show what was written in it. tsut 
 that there was another word written there it was strongly contended 
 there must have been some other date given there and written 
 under July 3rd. It was contended that the word "July" had been 
 substituted for some other word, and that " nd " was altered to 
 " 3rd." It was not easy to see why the date should have been 
 altered. But there was a very important piece of evidence given 
 by the Petitioner himself to which he wished to draw the atten- 
 tion of the Jury now. Petitioner said he never told anyone he 
 fixed October 2nd. " I did not fix it," he said, " in my own 
 hand-writing." Then a piece of paper was shown to him, and 
 this was what he said, " That is my hand-writing. It is 
 one of the letters I wrote to Dr. O'Haran. Apparently I have 
 written something there about October 2nd. I \vrote that in 
 August. I admit that I wrote that the seduction took place on 
 October 2nd." When he was shown the piece of paper he admitted 
 that the first seduction took place on October 2nd, and they had 
 in that written confession an alteration of the date, it was contended, 
 into July 3rd. Taking that along with the admission by the 
 Petitioner himself, after he had got the confession of June i3th,. 
 that he did allege the first seduction of Mrs. Coningham took place on 
 October 2nd, perhaps they could put two and two together and form 
 their own conclusions as to what was the word w r ritten under July. 
 If that was the way in which they fixed it at one time, of course the 
 Jury would take that into consideration when they came to consider 
 whether the adultery alleged to have taken place on July 3rd did 
 take place or ever was dreamt to have taken place on that date 
 when Mr. Coningham fixed October 2nd. It might be very hard to- 
 see why the alteration was made. If they looked at the photograph 
 of Dr. O'Haran, in the dark part of it was written the date 
 October 2nd, 1898. Well, they had to determine that question 
 and to form their own conclusion as to why that date was 
 fixed upon. They had to consider whether it was not fixed upon 
 on account of it being on the photograph, and was afterwards 
 changed to July 3rd. There were several other ways of testing that 
 date of July 3rd. The Respondent said she was there at five minutes 
 to 7 and she remained there for three-quarters of an hour. He 
 asked the Jury to have those dates fixed clearly in their minds. It 
 was only by fixing them in their minds and then comparing it with 
 what took place that they could form any reasonable conclusion. 
 So minute was her memory that she said she arrived there at five 
 minutes to 7, and remained there with him for three-quarters of an 
 hour. The Service at the Roman Catholic Cathedral began, accord- 
 ing to the evidence, at 7 o'clock, and he understood that there were 
 three Services combined into the Evening Service. There were first 
 the Vespers, then there was apparently some music, and the- 
 collection, then there was a Procession, and finally the Benediction^ 
 Those were the three divisions of the Service on that occasion^ 
 According to Mrs. Coningham's account Dr. O'Haran must hav&
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL, 339 
 
 been absent from the Cathedral and in the Cardinal's Hall from the 
 very time the Service began until it was very nearly over, that was 
 three-quarters of an hour, because the evidence was that it was over 
 at 8 o'clock. Vespers would be over at about twenty minutes past 
 7. Mrs. Bostock said Dr. O'Haran was absent during only part of 
 the Vespers. If Mrs. Coningham's evidence was true he must have 
 been absent during the whole of Vespers. Dr. O'Haran had a very im- 
 portant part of the Service. He had to incense the celebrant, a service 
 of very serious import, and one which had a special significance in the 
 Roman Catholic Church, and therefore one which must necessarily 
 be performed by some responsible person. That was a duty which, 
 according to the Cardinal and others, specially devolved upon Dr. 
 O'Haran. They said it was one which he had to do. Anyone in 
 the Cathedral would notice if he were not there to do his duty, it was 
 stated, and on those processional nights from 3,000 to 5,000 people 
 attended the Cathedral. As far as the Procession was concerned 
 it was marshalled by Dr. O'Haran from beginning to end. He 
 had to bring the ladies from the part of the building in which they 
 assembled, he had to form them into a procession, and he had to 
 join it \\hen the Cardinal did and to conduct it. If he was away for 
 three-quarters of an hour from five minutes to 7 up to 20 minutes 
 to 8 would he be able to perform those functions ? But they had 
 further the evidence of Dr. O'Haran that he was not absent. They 
 had the evidence of Mr. Tomlinson, who swore he saw him there 
 all the time, and they had the evidence of Mr. Mooney, the leader 
 of the Procession, who said he never knew Dr. O'Haran to be 
 absent. Mr. Tomlinson's evidence might deserve some considera- 
 tion at their hands. He was a stranger in Sydney, and he was 
 sure of the date, because being a stranger he was going up the 
 Parramatta River in one of the Parramatta steamers, and seeing a 
 number of priests and boys going up he as-ked whether there was 
 any function going on He was told there was the function of 
 opening of the Holy Cross School, near Ryde. He heard the 
 speeches there, and when he returned he went to the Cathedral in 
 the evening. It was proved that on that Sunday, July 3rd, the 
 Cardinal and Dr. O'Haran were at that function, so that he fixed 
 the date on that day. Then he said he went to the Cathedral, 
 and being a stranger and having travelled abroad, and seen how 
 Processions were conducted in foreign cathedrals, he took 
 particular notice of the way in which the Procession was carried 
 out here. Having seen Dr. O'Haran at Ryde in the afternoon his 
 face and figure were familiar to him. Mr. Tomlinson was perfectly 
 certain Dr. O'Haran was present during the whole of the Vespers, 
 that he was present during the \\hole Service, at the Procession, 
 and that he was not absent from the Procession for any length of 
 time at all. The witness Mooney spoke generally. He had a 
 position in the Church and he never remembered Dr. O'Haran 
 being absent. He might have been absent for some time from 
 Vespers, but what Mrs. Coningham charged him with was being
 
 34 THE CONINGHAM .CASE. 
 
 absent trom five minutes to 7 for three-quarters of an hour. The- 
 other way of testing the occurrence was by seeing- what the 
 locality was like where the adultery was alleged to have taken 
 place. As far as the fern-house was concerned the evidence was 
 very slight to show that Mrs. Coningham did pass between the 
 fern-house and the Cathedral. She said she thought they had 
 gone that way. Certainly, there was no doubt about it, she could 
 not have gone that way, but the very fact of her saying, " I think 
 we went around by that way," if she knew the locality at all, 
 would show she was very incorrect in her observations. Then there 
 was the question of the steps. There could be no doubt that there 
 were those seventeen steps. Apart from the great number of 
 witnesses who had sworn to that, they had the evidence of Mr. 
 Barr, who, he supposed, would be as impartial a man in a matter 
 of this kind as they could have. He was Clerk of Works there 
 whilst the repairs were being carried on, and he spoke with some 
 degree of authority. He said there were seventeen steps there, 
 although Mrs. Coningham said there were only three or four. 
 Then it had been said the levels had been altered that they were 
 entirely different from what they were. Again, Mr. Barr said the 
 levels were hardly different. There might be a difference of a toot, 
 but practically they came up to the same level as in 1898. And 
 he said a pillar was there the top of which showed the level. 
 Those were the only tests that could be applied as to this alleged 
 adultery on July 3rd. They would remember that Mrs. Coning- 
 ham's evidence was altogether uncorroborated ; that as against 
 that they had the positive testimony of Dr. O'Haran, who was 
 emphatic in his denial ; and when they came to put the test to see 
 if he was telling the truth, they had to consider the evidence that 
 his Honor had drawn their attention to. If they considered that 
 Mrs. Coningham was not telling the truth on that point, they would 
 ask themselves if she was not telling the truth in a case where her 
 veracity would be tested, how far could they believe her in cases 
 where her veracity could not be tested. The next date was March 
 1 7th, 1899. In her evidence she stated she left the Co-respondent 
 at very nearly 8 o'clock, and she went to the " Geisha." She said 
 it was nearly 8 o'clock, but in subsequent evidence she said she 
 left at 7.30. " He was with me when the clock struck half-past 
 7." So that the alleged adultery took place between half-past 7 
 and 8 o'clock. As against that the Co-respondent had called some 
 sixteen or seventeen witnesses, who all swore that from about 7 to 
 half-past 7 until 8 o'clock beyond all doubt Dr. O'Haran was at the 
 Town Hall attending to the concert. He gave half-past 7 because 
 he did not think any witness put the hour before that. But a number 
 of other witnesses did speak of an earlier hour than that. Mr. Pur- 
 cell, who went with Dr. O'Haran inthecab, saidhe wentafew minutes 
 after 7 o'clock. He said they drove to the Town Hall, and that 
 Dr. O'Haran was with him for some time distributing tickets. If 
 they believed all those witnesses they must come to the conclusion
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 34! 
 
 that it was quite impossible for Dr. O'Haran to be in the Cardinal's 
 Hall, as she said, committing adultery with her. There again they 
 had the time and the place fixed by her, and those tests put to the 
 dates she had given. He would go back to July 3rd, 1898, in order 
 to mention one or two matters. If the Jury remembered, it was 
 stated for the Petitioner that the southern door of the Cathedral 
 was blocked up on that occasion. Mr. Barr, who was Clerk of 
 Works during the Cathedral alterations, said that the door had 
 always to be kept open, owing to the orders of Dr. O'Haran. Mr. 
 Barr also stated that the aisle was not boarded up until 1899, and 
 not in 1898 as stated by Mrs. Coningham. He passed away from 
 March iyth to the occurrences that were said to have taken place 
 on April ist and 3oth, 1899. A number of witnesses were called 
 to show that Dr. O'Haran on that day was away at a bazaar with 
 Cardinal Moran from 3 p.m. until 7 o'clock in the evening. The 
 time fixed by Mrs. Coningham for being at St. Mary's Cathedral 
 on that day did not appear to him to be quite clear. Mr. Want 
 spoke of it as 4 o'clock. He (the Judge) could not see 4 o'clock 
 mentioned in the evidence. Mrs. Coningham said she was at the 
 Cathedral late in the afternoon, but he did not think she mentioned 
 4 o'clock. Perhaps the memory of the Jury would supplement his. 
 Therefore on that date there might be no contradiction. It was a 
 very unimportant date, because the only thing Mrs. Coningham 
 did was to send to Dr. O'Haran a blank sheet of paper as a sort of 
 April Fool's Day reminder. The next date, April 3Oth, was very 
 important. That date was not mentioned at the last Trial, but on 
 this occasion it was fixed as one of the occasions when an act of 
 adultery was alleged to have taken place. \Vhen fixing the date 
 Mrs. Coningham in cross-examination on the I3th of last month 
 said, " I fixed the date yesterday," that was to say on the second 
 day of the present Trial she fixed the date of April 3Oth, and told 
 her husband for the first time of that date on March i2th. It was 
 apparent that the Petitioner was informed about the date for the 
 first time on March i2th last as stated by the Respondent. Her 
 evidence was as to that date " I went there in a cab, and remained 
 at the Presbytery about an hour. I saw Co-respondent there. 
 Adultery was committed there that day. I think it was in the 
 afternoon, more towards the evening." Again in cross-examina- 
 tion she said, in answer to Mr. Want, that she was sure she had 
 not picked out a wrong date, and that she remembered being with 
 the Co-respondent before 6 o'clock. It was for the Jury to make 
 up their minds what time was denoted by the Respondent. Did it 
 denote i o'clock or about i o'clock, 2 o'clock or about 2 o'clock, or 
 late in the afternoon towards 6 o'clock ? It was very important to 
 fix the hour, because Father Treacy gave evidence that after cele- 
 brating Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral in the morning of April 3Oth, 
 1899, he was in and about the Cathedral and Presbytery, with Dr. 
 O'Haran practically never out of his sight, until they sat down to 
 dinner about i o'clock. Cardinal Moran was at the dinner, and
 
 342 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Dr. O'Haran presided. That corresponded with the evidence of 
 Cardinal Moran. Father Treacy also stated that he saw Dr. 
 O'Haran all the time after dinner, until he left at a quarter to 2 
 o'clock with Cardinal Moran in a carriage to go to Waitara. The 
 evidence showed that they arrived there shortly after 3.30 p.m., that 
 they left after the 5.17 p.m. train departed for Milson's Point, that 
 they crossed in the horse-punt about 7 p.m., and reached the Cathe- 
 dral about 7.30 p.m. If the Jury believed the witnesses for the Co- 
 respondent, they had every hour of the afternoon from i o'clock 
 until half-past 7 o'clock accounted for, so that the Co-respondent 
 could not have been at St. Mary's Cathedral with the Respondent 
 at the time she said he was. The Jury was entitled to believe one 
 witness although there were twenty others contradicting that wit- 
 ness. If they thought one was a witness of truth and the others 
 were perjurers or could not be relied upon, they were entitled to 
 believe the one as against the others. If the Jury did not believe 
 Mrs. Coningham's evidence as regarded the afternoon of April 3oth, 
 and thought she had deliberately sworn what was not true, the Jury 
 would ask themselves how far they could rely on her uncorroborated 
 evidence as to other dates when the test had not been applied to 
 them. She had sworn to an immense number of occasions vaguely, 
 on which she said adultery was committed. It was easy for her to 
 say that adultery took place at a spot where the Co-respondent must 
 necessarily be in attendance at his duties every day of the week. 
 When the Respondent said thn' Uiltery took place at the Presby- 
 tery or the Cardinal's Hall, the parties must have known that the 
 Co-respondent would be there on those occasions, and it would be 
 impossible for him to deny that he was there. Therefore, as re- 
 garded those occasions they could only have oath against oath. 
 The object of putting in the document, he took it, was for the pur- 
 pose of showing there was a combination or conspiracy between 
 the Petitioner and the Respondent, and that they were not bona _fide 
 bringing forward this matter as a real charge of adultery, but as 
 Mr. Want boldly put it, to conspire to levy black-mail. He thought 
 he ought to point out that on occasions of this kind there were con- 
 spiracies and conspiracies. Of course "conspiracy" was a very 
 alarming word, and generally applied to evil deeds. But if an in- 
 jured husband and a repentant wife put their heads together, and 
 said they would do all in their power to punish the person who 
 seduced the wife, there was nothing wrong in that. The only thing 
 was that in this Case Mrs. Coningham said there was no combina- 
 tion at all. Th Petitioner and the Respondent could not now set 
 up that it was a case of an injured husband and repentant wife put- 
 ting their heads together to punish the Co-respondent, because they 
 denied that there was any such combination, tha^ they never met 
 together, that they had always been standing alo f, and that they 
 had been fighting hosti'e to each other. The Jury had, therefore, 
 to look at both the writing of the letters and the quection of con- 
 spiracy from two points of view. If they came to the conclusion
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 343 
 
 that the letters were really written by Mrs. Coningham, then they 
 had a Case in which they found her swearing falsely, and in a 
 manner clearly within her own knowledge, for she must know per- 
 fectly well whether she wrote the letters or not. In the same way 
 if they read that correspondence, and, looking into the Respon- 
 dent's evidence, came to the conclusion there was a combination or 
 conspiracy between the husband and the wife, then again the Jury 
 had her swearing falsely on a matter within her knowledge, be- 
 cause she must know whether she conspired with her husband in 
 this Case or not, whether they were in correspondence with each 
 other, were agreeing to the forms in which the evidence was to be 
 presented to the Jury, or if they were combining together to 
 "strike" the Jury. If they came to the conclusion that there was 
 a combination, then they had her swearing falsely that there was 
 no such combination. That really appeared to him to be the most 
 important point in the evidence. What the Jury had to do was to 
 say " Aye" or " No" on the question as to whether or not Mrs. 
 Co: ingham swore the truth when she alleged these different charges 
 of adultery. To test her uncorroborated evidence by matters out- 
 side the actiial act of adultery these letters were of real importance 
 in this Case. As far as they were concerned the Jury had heard 
 a great deal of expert evidence. Indeed, it was given adnartseam, 
 and he did not think he would be justified in taking up the time of 
 the Jury by again going over the whole of the expert evidence, 
 especially in view of the fact that the Jury, when the evidence was 
 being tendered, said they had had enough of it to enable them to 
 form an opinion as to the genuineness of the writing. The Jury 
 could examine the documents that were said to have been forged, 
 and could compare them with those that were admitted to be 
 genuine. They must bear in mind that the evidence of an expert 
 had always to be received with some degree of reserve and caution, 
 because people sometimes formed an opinion very positively, and 
 it might be that their opinion was altogether wrong. Where an 
 expert had been accustomed to examine writing closely, he might 
 be able to detect a likeness or discrepancies, and point them out to 
 the Jury so as to enable them to form their own opinion. In deal- 
 ing with the genuineness of the documents he thought they must 
 also look into the documents themselves, and see whether such 
 documents as these were likely to be forged, and whether it was at 
 all probable they were forged. They were very peculiar documents. 
 They really seemed to him to bear so closely upon the Case and to 
 have such relevancy to the way in which the Case was conducted 
 that the Jury might possibly find a difficulty in thinking how a forger 
 would forge such documents. Take, for instance, exhibit" 12, 
 and think what a person would say who was asked to sit down in 
 some office and forge a document which would be of use to his side. 
 Suppose he got all the hints going to enable him to prepare some 
 document, and had put before him a document admittedly written 
 by the person whose hand-writing was to be forged, the question
 
 344 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 then arose how was he going to forge a document that would be 
 useful to his side. Exhibit 12 was a document of that character, 
 which the Petitioner alleged was forged. Take another letter which 
 referred to the number of the cab as 999, and contained the words 
 "if you deny the Arnold letters so will I. I will say the writing 
 was something like yours, but I never knew any Mabel. The letters 
 were stolen. I concluded the writer had stolen them, but the ^3 
 I have still. I never made use of them on that account. But then 
 did you register them ? If so, what then ?'' He asked the Jury to 
 imagine an expert, some keen writer, who knew nothing about the 
 Case, or was as intimate with the Case as they pleased, being set 
 down at a table to forge a document. Could he have written such 
 a document, especially one that would be of use to his side? 
 That same letter contained the words : "Taylor telephone 514. I 
 will be there at 9.45 in the morning if you want me to strike the 
 Jury. Am sending priscription to show I have been ill." It was 
 the duty of the Jury to look at the contents of that letter, as well 
 as the formation of the writing, and to say whether it was one a 
 forger would write for the benefit of the Co-respondent, or whether 
 it was not literally and apparently instruc tiers to follow a course 
 which it was admitted had been followed in this Case. The letter 
 might be a forgery. It might not be Mr?. Coningham's hand- 
 writing. That was entirely for the Jury to determine. If the Jury 
 thought it. was not her hand-writing, let them throw it on one side. 
 Then there was the letter relating to the plan of St. Mary's Cathe- 
 dral and referring to the seventeen steps. The remarks he had 
 made with regard to the previous letter from which he had quoted 
 also applied to this one about the plan and steps. Looking at its 
 contents, could the Jury say it was a document forged for the 
 benefit of the Co-respondent ? Then, as far as Mr. Coningham was 
 concerned, he came to the matters disputed by him. Petitioner 
 denied sending a telegram to Mr. W. Miller at Fairfield. The 
 Jury would notice that the signature began <( A.C.," was scratched 
 out, and "J. Exton " written after. The telegram said, "Fred, 
 meet me at Fairfield Station Tuesday morning ; urgent, cannot 
 wait." Compare that telegram with a letter-card which the Peti- 
 tioner admitted sending to Mr. W. Miller, and containing the words, 
 " Dear Fred, I sent you a wire yesterday to meet me at Fairfield 
 Station." That letter-card was sent on the day following that on 
 which the telegram was sent. It was for the Jury, after consider- 
 ing that circumstance, and comparing the hand-writing in both 
 documents, as well as their contents, to say whether or not both 
 were written by Coningham. Then the Petitioner denied that he 
 sent to Mrs. Coningham the letter-cards addressed "Mrs. V. 
 Arnold." Mrs. Coningham admitted that whilst she went by that 
 name at Fairfield she had her luggage labelled " Mrs. V. Arnold," 
 as she did not wish to be subject to the impertinent gaze of people 
 who would guess who she was if her own name was on the luggage. 
 Coningham also said his wife went to Fairfield in the name of
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 345. 
 
 " Mrs. V. Arnold" as she did not want the finger of scorn pointed at 
 her. It was clear, however, that at Miller's place the Respondent 
 was known as Mrs. Coningham. The Petitioner went up as 
 Coningham, and treated Mrs. Coningham and the children as his 
 own. 
 
 [Petitioner : Not Mrs. Coningham, your Honor.] 
 
 His Honor : No, only so far as her name was concerned. 
 They had the evidence of letter deliverers at the General Post 
 Office that Coningham used to call up to the end of last January 
 for letters addressed to "V. Arnold." The Jury had to consider 
 whether that was evidence of the parties having acted together. But 
 that was not the only matter in reference to them acting together, 
 because he must draw attention to evidence which appeared to 
 him as very material indeed. That was the fact that after the 
 confession of adultery was made on May 24th, up to the time 
 when the petition was delivered to Mrs. Coningham, they were 
 living together in the same house, and occupying the same bed- 
 room. He had heard a most pathetic address by Mr. Coningham 
 whilst speaking of the shock he received when he got the con- 
 fession from his wife, how it had shattered his hopes, ruined his 
 home, and left him the mere wreck the Court saw him at that 
 moment. The Jury must bear in mind, when considering that 
 portion of the Petitioner's address, that he slept in the same 
 bedroom with his wife after she had made her confession to him. 
 He must also draw attention to the position the parties had taken 
 up in the Case. Mrs. Coningham put in no appearance, but she 
 was called as a witness by her husband. The Law was quite clear 
 that no person was obliged to give evidence of adultery that 
 would affect himself or herself, and on the last Trial Mr. Justice 
 Simpson told Mrs. Coningham she was not bound to give evidence 
 unless she chose to do so. He (Mr. Justice Owen) did not warn 
 Mrs. Coningham again on this occasion, because he knew that on 
 the former Trial she had given evidence. She was, on the present 
 occasion, asked by Petitioner if she knew that she need not, unless 
 she chose, give evidence, and replied "Yes." Thereiore, Mrs. 
 Coningham must be treated as a willing witness. Really the 
 whole Case of the Petitioner rested upon her evidence. The Jury 
 would have to consider whether that did not show that whilst the 
 Trial was going on there was not correspondence passing between 
 husband and wife, and an arrangement between them as to how 
 the Case was to be conducted. They had the evidence about the 
 "striking" of the Jury. There was nothing extraordinary in the 
 Jury Panel being seen some time before the Court sat. If the 
 arrangement was that Mrs. Coningham was to get the Panel, and 
 come to Court with her husband to " strike " the Jury, that 
 would be very much like combination. That, however, depend- 
 ed to a great extent on these letters, because Mrs. Coninghanv 
 did not, as a matter en fact, help to "strike" the Jury. Mrs,
 
 34-6 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Coningham's evidence had been tested in several ways by fixing 
 the hour, and the place, and the occasion when these differ- 
 ent acts of adultery were alleged to have taken place, and it 
 was for the Jury to consider whether the evidence brought by the 
 Co-respondent in answer to this showed that Mrs. Coningham was 
 telling the truth or not. They were entitled to believe one witness 
 and to disbelieve twenty. Having got Mrs Coningham's evidence, 
 having seen her in the box, and seen how she stood the cross- 
 examination, the Jury was entitled to consider as to whether or not 
 she was to be believed. The Jury would have to deal with those 
 different occasions, and say whether they believed her story, which 
 could be tested by outside evidence. If they believed her, not- 
 withstanding that, they would return an answer in the affirmative. 
 If the Jury thought her evidence had been entirely displaced, that 
 time after time, and occasion after occasion, when her evidence 
 could be tested, she had been proved to be an untruthful witness, 
 they had two courses to follow either to say that the matter was 
 left in such doubt that they could not reasonably say on which side 
 the truth was on, and if they were lelt in that state of doubt they must 
 return a negative answer. They must hold that the adultery had 
 not been proved to their satisfaction, just as much as if they had 
 made up their minds that the defence was complete, and that Dr. 
 O'Haran had completely answered the Case set up by the Peti- 
 tioner, and that in the opinion of the Jury no ^Jultery had been 
 committed. In either of those cases the Jury would return a 
 negative answer to those issues whether adultery was committed 
 between the i5th June, 1838, and the 3oth September, 1899. The 
 Jury had heard the Addresses of Mr. Want and the Petitioner, and 
 he was sure the Jury would give them such weight as tuey were 
 entitled to. He left them now to consider their verdict, and he 
 trusted they would go into the matter very carefully and minutely, 
 so as to really make up their minds in which direction the truth 
 lay. The Case had excited great public attention and interest, and 
 he thought everybody was anxious for the Jury to speak out authorita- 
 tively one way or the other as to whether these charges of adultery 
 were true or false. 
 
 The Jury then retired at five minutes past 3 o'clock to consider 
 their verdict. 
 
 The Jury returned into Court at twenty minutes past 5. 
 
 The Foreman, in reply to the Associate, stated they had 
 agreed upon a verdict. 
 
 THE VERDICT. 
 
 When the Jury retired, the spectators held their seats, for it 
 was expected l.iat the retirement would be formal anJ the verdict 
 immediate. As the minutes passed, now one and now another 
 slipped out of the hushed silence of the Court to exchange notes in 
 .the corridors or passages with others there anxiously wailing.
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 347 
 
 Two hours passed ! " No verdict till nine to-night," might be 
 heard whispered all about. How long drawn-out are hours of 
 waiting ! A glance from a Sheriffs Officer to the Constables on 
 duty at the gates " The Jury is coming." Everyone seems to 
 spell out what is in the air ; the Court is crowded in an instant. 
 The city is on tip-toe, but the streets are still, for the crowd ex- 
 cepting only a few hundreds has dispersed, to come again and 
 wait for nine o'clock. And the Constables keep this handful back 
 from the path-ways and passages. 
 
 "Silence !" and the hum of voices ceases. The Sheriffs Officers, 
 then the Associate, take their places, and Mr. Ralston, Mr. Slat- 
 tery, and Dr. O'Haran, resume the positions they have occupied 
 for three long, weary weeks. Then through the door behind the 
 Bench the Jury pass, one by one, and file into the Box. " Silence !"' 
 again. Enter the Tipstaff and the Judge ; and finally Mr. Want, 
 without wig or gown, hurries to the table. 
 
 Thus the Associate, standing : " Gentlemen of the Jury, an- 
 swer to your names," which done he asks whether they are agreed 
 on a verdict, and they returning " yes," he puts to them the cate- 
 gorical allegations of the Petition in question form. To the issue 
 of marriage the Foreman answers, "Yes!" To the question 
 whether Mrs. Coningham's confessions of her unfaithfulness, 
 seduction, and prostitutions are to be believed, " No !" To all the 
 allegations of misconduct involving Dr. O'Haran the answer again 
 comes plainly, clearly, emphatically " No !" The air is rent with 
 cheering, shouting, stamping, and wild cries of approval. The 
 Judge threatens to clear the Court, and all is still again. Then the 
 Judge to the Jury, "I thank you, gentlemen, for the patient attention 
 you have given the Case, and I would like to add that I entirely 
 concur with your verdict." Whereupon the Foreman again reads: 
 " The Jury desires to add that they are of opinion there is not suffi- 
 cient evidence to prove conspiracy in this Case." The men of Law 
 proceed with their formalities, the Judge unmoved dismisses the 
 Co-respondent from the Suit, grants an order for costs, and, to the 
 Jury, adds, "Gentlemen, you are discharged." 
 
 The Petitioner presents a pitiable spectacle. He sits at a dis- 
 tance from the table, fermenting, shiftless, perturbed, betraying 
 rapid, nervous twitchings and fluctuations in the trembling of his 
 limbs, the movements of his mouth, and the flashings of his eyes* 
 He sees now that he had handled a ravelled business. His dull, 
 fierce tenacity, his wild wanton aggressiveness, his ragings, curs- 
 ings, and tears, have all gone for nothing. His shrill plaints, his 
 drumming and parading had not availed ; the end has come. The 
 reaction has set in. He feels it in his bones. Mindful of the insight 
 of suspicion which the Court displayed, he had declared in his Ad- 
 dress that the justification of the priest would spell his indictment 
 "such a verdict would mean that he would lose his liberty!" 
 His lamentable oratory, his acid rage, his vapid, impudent indict-
 
 348 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 ment of palpable innocence had convinced no one. His savage 
 onslaughts, intended to wake the worst passions of his listeners, 
 failed even to assure himself that he had not become ridiculous in 
 their eyes. As the pronouncements of the Jury ring out in the 
 hushed silence, he draws over to the table, and resting his head 
 upon his folded arms, the tragic finale of the last act of the drama 
 is ushered in with sobs which break the stillness. But no one is 
 affected. The play was well rehearsed. Louder and louder the 
 sobs, whilst convulsive movements mark the time. When the 
 vindication is complete, the discredited Petitioner, lifting himself 
 around, springs with outstretched arms and clawed hands at the 
 priest, who sits behind his Counsel, almost within arm's reach. 
 The frantic movement is rapidly executed, and the effect is perfect. 
 The accompaniment of an anguished shriek makes it melodramatic. 
 No one is prepared for it save the priest, who has been forewarned, 
 and deftly steps aside, allowing the athlete to find a congenial rest- 
 ing-place for his talons in the dust of the floor. The benches pour 
 out their occupants, and in a moment a score of stalwart arms 
 pinion the " villain of the play" lest he might use his revolver. His 
 struggles and writhings are those of a fury. Never before did such 
 .a scene disturb and degrade a Court of Law. Extricated at length 
 Yrom the tangle of chair-legs, his rage grows pale ; he is carried out 
 by the Police, his cries, " Let me at him" being uttered only when 
 he is well held, as is the way with certain pot-house heroes. The 
 carefully worked-up hysterical display is followed by a death-like 
 stillness. " How he could play ' Michael Feeney,' "says someone. 
 With head hung back, eyes staring, he is carried out breathing 
 stertorously, to the back premises, to be revived with the stores of 
 medical comforts ordinarily applied to the assuaging of high-strung 
 tempers. " I have a device," says Bottom the Weaver, "to make 
 all well. Write me a prologue ; and let the prologue seem to say, 
 ' We will do no harm with our swords, and that Pyramus i not 
 killed indeed ; and for the more better assurance, tell them that I 
 Pyramus am not Pyramus, but Bottom the Weaver'; this will put 
 them out of fear." Whereupon Snout suggests, "Will not the 
 ladies be afeard of the lion. Therefore another prologue must tell 
 he is not a lion.'' 
 
 And withal the serenity and dignity of the Court was not dis- 
 turbed. The Judge was callous ; the spectators indifferent. Con- 
 ingham has acted many parts, and this part had its purpose like 
 the others. Would it affect the authorities, earn their pity, and 
 save an indictment ? That was what it was meant to do. But 
 all who saw him were agreed that this was no victim of a judicial 
 wrong who was raving at large. It was still the man who had 
 played many days for a big stake and lost. He could " squeal in 
 L monstrous little voice, ' Thisbe,' ' Thisbe,' " when his wife who 
 "confessed" to her shame and his wrong told in measured words, 
 destitute of any delicacy, the most degrading story any creature
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 349 
 
 torn of a woman has ever spoken, hasty limners sketching her 
 features, she not disapproving'. And the Jury did not believe her. 
 He, this performer, could " play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a 
 cat in, to make all split," when he had to cross-hackle an adverse 
 witness. He could play " Thisbe in a mask." He could "play 
 the Lion's part, and do it extempore, for it is nothing but roaring; 
 and do it, too, terribly, so as to fright the duchess and the ladies 
 that they would shriek." He could be vehement, vindictive, heart- 
 less, indelicate, brutal, and obscene. He could use the platitudes 
 of invective and the accents of contempt. Such was the Coning- 
 ham who addressed the Jury, and failed to convince them, though 
 his part was " rehearsed most obscenely and courageously." 
 
 But was it all a piece of acting, or was it a genuine outburst 
 of outraged nature ? Even here the man failed. Picture the 
 anguish, the heart-rackings. and the brain-burnings of such a man 
 if he meant or felt a tenth of this display. Would he discover before 
 he was far along the passage that he had broken a sleeve-link in 
 his struggles ? Coningham did, and caused a search to be begun 
 at once. A broken heart and a broken sleeve-link ! Bah ! 
 
 THE TRIUMPH OF DR O'HARAN. 
 
 NEWS of the great victory spread swiftly through the city. 
 A racing, human wave carried it to St. Mary s, and sent up a spray 
 of cheers around that stately pile. Dr. O'Haran, bareheaded, and 
 attired in his cassock he never wears a coat with Mr. Want, 
 Mr. Slattery, Mr. Ralston, and a troop of friends, walked from the 
 Court to the new gate of the Presbyteryin St. Mary's Road. 
 People who met them wasted no time in asking the nature of the 
 verdict, but cheered, without question. The good tidings were 
 clearly written on their faces. Everybody had expected a verdict 
 of acquittal, but few had thought it would have come so quickly ! 
 And the crowd in a rapture of good-humour called out to Langton 
 the Sacristan, who was standing at the Presbytery Gate : " You'll 
 not have to change your religion ^ now, Pat." The Sacristan 
 smiled broadly, and looked as proud as if he were the hero of the 
 occasion. 
 
 Meanwhile the real Hero^vas in a fair way to be smothered 
 with congratulations. Prominent citizens, and brother clergymen, 
 surrounded him to express their delight by hearty hand-shaking. 
 If he had had as many rrafids as Briarasus he would have found use 
 for them all. The Cardinal, like the statue of a pontifical saint in 
 a niche, stood at an open window above, and gazed with calm 
 benevolence upon his people below. There was something 
 separate and supramundane in his attitude and expression the 
 look of a Prince of the Church against which the Gates 01 Hell
 
 i 
 
 350 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 shall not prevail as he acknowledged the cheers of the crowd by 
 quietly raising his biretta and inclining his head. Even a graven 
 image could not be without emotion on such an occasion, but the 
 Cardinal was Master of his Emotions and remained impassive and 
 serene amidst the wild whirl of enthusiasm. 
 
 Then Dr. O'Haran led the way into the Presbytery and was- 
 followed by his legal champions and personal friends. They 
 assembled in an immense, gaunt room, with bare walls and plain, 
 unlovely furniture. A mediagval sideboard, or dresser, of carved 
 mahogany stood at one side of the room, looking like a relic of 
 better days. Down the middle of this monastic barn ran a long 
 deal table, which did not groan under the weight of the good things 
 provided. As a matter of fact, it had just been laid for the Lenten 
 evening meal of the inhabitants of the Presbytery. One end of 
 this unassuming board was covered with a coarse white cloth 
 none of your dainty diaper or delicate damask, which are a delight 
 to the eye but a snare for the soul. No sparkle of cut-glass, no 
 sheen of silver cruets and salvers, no covered dishes suggestive of 
 concealed culinary chefs d'ceuvres, no lordly sirloin to cut at and 
 come again, relieved the sad monotony of that haggard table, one 
 glance at which would have made an epicure shudder. There was 
 not even a fork to be seen. It would have been cruel irony if there 
 had been. He evidently dines with Duke Humphrey who dines at 
 St. Mary's Presbytery in Lent. There were cups and saucers 
 visible, and some little plates and knives for bread-and-butter. 
 There were also some grapes, but no lentils, or cresses from the 
 spring, or boiled grass, or similar anchorite fare. 
 
 The burly Mr. Want gazed at the spread with astonished eyes. 
 To him it seemed to be a wood-cut from an illustrated " History of 
 Famine." The appearance just then of a number of bottles greatly 
 improved the look of the table, though they seemed almost as- 
 much out of place as gold-fish in a funeral urn. 
 
 The K.C. gathered himself together and spoke to the follow- 
 ing effect : 
 
 "Gentlemen ! With the permission of his Eminence, who, I 
 am proud to say, is with us on this memorable evening, I propose 
 to you, with peculiar pleasure, the health of the Man uho to-night 
 stands highest in the estimation of the people of this Country. 
 The result of this Case is not parochial but, as Mr. Justice Owen 
 has said, almost national in importance. Now this Case has 
 passed out of the Courts I am more free to speak, and you will 
 believe me when I tell you that from the inception of this Trial I 
 have had in my possession documents which most conclusively 
 prove the innocence of Dr. O'Haran. I refer not to documents 
 put in evidence, but to others which I could not very well get 
 admitted as evidence, but which proved to me, and to Mr. Ralston, 
 that there was not a shadow of a doubt that we were concerned ire
 
 THE SECOND TRIAL. 35! 
 
 the defence of a man who was guiltless of all that had been 
 charged against him. I much regret that party feeling was 
 brought into the Case, as that involved issues which tended to 
 cloud the real one, but in spite of all the adroitness of his 
 adversaries Dr. O'Haran has come out of the ordeal with the 
 highest and purest of characters ; he has passed unscathed through 
 the fire. He faced the issue and fought it out like a man not for 
 his own sake alone, but for the credit of his Church and the 
 defence of the community. He fought it with a measure of 
 courage equal to that which wins a Victoria Cross." 
 
 And then, with lifted glasses in hand and glistening eyes, the 
 company broke into the genial old catch -" For He's a Jolly Good 
 Fellow." It sounded almost like profanity in that austere apart- 
 ment, and many of those present expected to see the hand of the 
 Cardinal raised to quell the jovial riot. But his Eminence stood 
 motionless, puud of the display, but still apart. 
 
 Then Dr. O'Haran, with the measured gentleness of voice 
 which distinguished him in the Court, quietly responded. Every 
 other voice was silent, and every eye rested on him as he stood 
 with head bowed, conscious of his vindication but neither exultant 
 nor assertive : 
 
 " If," he said, " this little company felt as I do its praise would 
 be bestowed on Mr. Want, who has carried me through trial to 
 victory on his shoulders. And with his name I must couple that of 
 one of my oldest and most trusted friends Mr. Slattery. Nor do 
 I forget Mr. Ralston, who so ably assisted Mr. Want. My thanks 
 to them, from my heart, and also to you, my other friends, who 
 have shown me so much sympathy. I cannot give particular ex- 
 pression to the gratitude I owe so many. If I could, I would. I 
 have been supported by the prayers and devoted confidence of the 
 whole Catholic community, not only in Australia but beyond its 
 borders. In such an ordeal as I have passed through one realises 
 his own weakness and humbly acknowledges it. I have had most 
 excellent legal aid in defending myself against the calumnies of 
 which I was the object. Apart from this the skill displayed by 
 'D. G. & Co.' in laying bare the vile plot against my honour was 
 simply marvellous. I hope to have another occasion of ac- 
 knowledging my obligations for the prayers and the sympathy of the 
 Catholic community. Now I can repeat only my heartfelt thanks 
 to all who were concerned in my defence." 
 
 Then the Cardinal, urged by Mr. Want, threw aside his- 
 habitual reserve, for a few moments, and said : "I would nor now 
 venture to speak a word except to congratulate all concerned uporn 
 the splendid result of the Great Trial just concluded. That result 
 reflects infinite credit on the Barristers, Solicitors, and all others, 
 concerned. Every honest man in Australia will acknowledge that 
 Mr. Want performed a great task in a manner worthy of his repu-
 
 352 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 tation. He leaves this Case with, if I may say so, renewed laurels. 
 Someone once spoke of the ' Victoria Cross of Public Opinion.' 
 Such a Cross has to-day been won by Dr. O'Haran and Mr. Want. 
 I heartily join you in your congratulations to Dr. O'Haran, and 
 assure you that I shall always cherish the memory of the able work 
 and the untiring devotion of you all."
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 I. 
 
 PRESS COMMENTS ON THE TRIAL. 
 
 THE First Trial ended abortively, although eight of the Jury 
 were for an acquittal of the Co-respondent. The Petitioner then 
 intimated that he intended to bring a new Trial. The New South 
 Wales journals, in consequence, refrained from comment. The 
 leading newspapers of the other Colonies, however, under no imme- 
 diate terror of judicial pains and penalties, and not having then 
 received such an intimation, made the Case the subject of their lead- 
 ing articles. In Melbourne, the Age and Argus, in severely re- 
 strained but lucid articles, found against the Coninghams, and 
 in favour of Dr. O'Haran all along the line. The South Austra- 
 lian Register was even more decided in its comment : 
 
 " This is a keenly critical world. While regarding celibacy of the 
 priesthood as an admirable contrivance for securing ecclesiastical per- 
 manency, some people are only too ready to assume every charge proved 
 against a priest even before any evidence has been heard which justifies 
 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." 
 
 After the conclusion of the Second Trial, the flood-gates of 
 press criticism were opened, and a paean of almost universal con- 
 gratulation was chorused by a hundred pens. 
 
 Now, after nearly a month, during which the one clear issue of this trial 
 has been pursued through all the mass of evidence submitted on the one side 
 or the other, and when everything bearing on that issue has been dissected 
 by the Petitioner, the Bar, and the Judge, the result is not a disagreement 
 among the Jury, but a verdict, and that verdict by the voice of a Jury of his 
 countrymen, completely exonerates Dr. O'Haran. Sydney Morning Herald. 
 
 Probably to the general relief, one of the most remarkable divorce cases 
 ever heard in Australia has come to an end, and a satisfactory end, inasmuch 
 as there was a unanimous verdict, after a very short retirement of the Jury 
 a trifle more than two hours. . . . Dr. O'Haran has received what in fact, 
 though not in name, is an acquittal from that little assemblage of twelve, as 
 far as possible impartial persons which the English-speaking race has 
 everywhere considered as best fitted to do justice between man and man. 
 There is no going behind such a decision. Evening A'eu-s, Sydney.
 
 354 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 But at all events they (the Jury) apparently had no great difficulty in 
 coming to a conclusion as to the charges which had been levelled at Dr. 
 O'Haran. Their answer to the question of alleged guilt was a distinct No. 
 It would be strange indeed if it had been otherwise. It is not too much to 
 say that if such evidence as was adduced against Dr. O'Haran were to be 
 accepted by a Jury no man in the community would be safe. The business 
 of the black-mailer would flourish apace. Australian Star, Sydney. 
 
 No matter what the form of faith held by any one of us, that verdict 
 must be gratifying to every right-minded person, and we venture to say all 
 creeds alike will share in hearty congratulation, as well as in admiration, for 
 the courageous bearing of Dr. O'Haran throughout the two trials. Few men 
 have suffered so much or borne it so manfully. The National Advocate, 
 Bathurst. 
 
 The Second Trial of Dr. O'Haran the Case meant that on a charge of 
 adultery with one of his congregation, has, after 1 5 days' patient investigation, 
 resulted in an undoubted victory for the rev. gentleman. The terrible ordeal 
 which he passed and re-passed might well be compared to a martyrdom, and 
 false testimonies the swords and darts which tormented him Cootainundra 
 Liberal. 
 
 It could be seen from the first by shrewd men, whose minds were 
 unbiassed by any sectarian feeling, that the Case against Dr. O'Haran vas 
 one of infamous and audacious black-mail. It was calculated by the 
 conspirators that a high dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church would 
 rather submit to pay an extortionate sum as "hush money" than submit 
 himself to the fearful ordeal of making a defence against an abominable 
 charge of illicit intimacy with a parishioner and a married woman. A weaker 
 man than Dr. O'Haran might have submitted to heavy black-mail rather than 
 have gone into a pub.ic Court of Justice to prove his innocence. Hut the 
 courageous Doctor proved equal to the trying and dreadful emergency, and 
 took proper steps to disprove the foul accusations brought against him. He 
 has succeeded in defeating the fiendish machinations of his cunning enemies, 
 and has brought utter defeat, disgrace, and everlasting contumely on those 
 who plotted against him. Western Advocate, N.S.W. 
 
 The verdict of the Jury in the Coningham Divorce Case must be 
 accepted as absolutely acquitting Dr. O'Haran of the most odious and 
 damning accusation that can be brought against any man of his cloth. 
 Common justice demands that full weight should be given to the decision so 
 far as it affects the Co-respondent, irrespective of the strangely halting rider 
 with which the Jury accompany their finding. The least sympathetic 
 onlooker must concede that Dr. O'Haran appears from the outset to have 
 met the charge in open, fearless fashion. Not .a scintilla of evidence was 
 adduced to show any disposition to parley with his assailants, or to shirk the 
 terrible ordeal confronting him. On that ground, as well as his success in 
 demolishing one after another the dates relied upon by the Petitioner's side r 
 Dr. O'Haran must be adjudged to emerge from these two protracted Trials 
 with unsullied reputation. . . . The Roman Catholic Church must be 
 heartily congratulated upon the removal of a stigma which would otherwise 
 have incalculably injured the priestly office in public respect. And at the 
 same time it deserves sympathy for the unpleasantnesses which are 
 inseparable from such vindications in the Law Courts. Argus, Melbourne.
 
 APPENDIX. 355 
 
 The issues, as put clearly by Mr. Justice Owen, was narrowed down to one 
 question, whether in fact the adultery alleged had been committed. The 
 onus of proving this plainly lay upon the Petitioner, who stated it as the 
 ground of his Suit. The Petitioner's whole Case depended practically 
 indeed, it may be said entirely upon the story given by his wife, for it was 
 to her alleged confession before the Trial, and to her adherence to that 
 confession in the witness-box, that the Petitioner had to look for the evidence 
 in support of his Case. The Respondent was therefore the Petitioner's 
 principal witness. . . . In direct support of the Respondent's statements 
 as to what occurred between her and Dr. O'Haran it was impossible for the 
 Petitioner to adduce any evidence. In his apparent confidence in the merits 
 of his own cause the Petitioner did not hesitate to call to his aid the evidence 
 of Cardinal Moran. But here he, in fact, not only got no assistance, but the 
 Cardinal was able to answer that on certain of the dates mentioned as those 
 on which adultery had been committed Dr. O'Haran was with him, either 
 taking part in the Services at the Cathedral, or at some distant place engaged 
 in some other ecclesiastical work. Age, Melbourne. 
 
 The courageous and indomitable spirit of the clerical Co-respondent 
 proved more than a match for the implacable hatred and concentrat"d abuse 
 of the Petitioner. . . . The odious black-mailers of the wide Australian 
 Continent have received a needful check in their over-reaching villainy. 
 . . . . In the Coningham Case, the issues as clearly put by the Judge, 
 and as clearly answered by the Jury, leave not the slightest trace of 
 besmirchment upon the brave Co-respondent. Bendigo Independent. 
 
 The Bulletin sincerely congratulates Dr. O'Haran on the issue of the 
 Case. It also congratulates every other man under 98 years of age, and 
 every decent woman possessed of a bi other or a husband or a lover. For, 
 if there could possibly have been any other decision on the ascertained facts 
 at the hands of a Jury sworn to decide according to the evidence, N.S.W. 
 would have been branded as a good country to get out of without delay. 
 Bulletin, Sydney. 
 
 At the risk of being accused of "buttering the Romans" or, worse 
 still, of not being a No-surrender Protestant I offer my congratulations to 
 Dr. O'Haran and the Roman Catholic Church on the issue of the Coningham 
 Divorce Case. The accusation failed completely and under the light'thrown 
 upon it by one of our most capable Judges, it seems wonderful that it should 
 ever have been brought into Court, or obtained the notoriety it did. It is 
 much to be regretted that feelings which reflect discredit upon Religion 
 altogether should have been manifested so strongly in connection with this 
 matter. How could people fail to see that such a charge was placing every 
 form of religion on its tiial, and that a conviction would be to the shame and 
 hindrance of all ? And how could good Protestants be so illogical as to 
 conclude that, because Dr. O'Haran was suspected of manufacturing the 
 ammunition for Cardinal Moran's pom-poms, therefore he must be convicted 
 of gross sin ? That sort of logic may suit the Evangelical Counc 1 of New 
 South Wales, which is sworn to suppress sacerdotalism everywhere in this 
 State ; and it may be in accordance with the ideas of justice obtaining in 
 that anti-sacerdotalist company to carry on a newspaper correspondence 
 having for its object the destruction of confidence in the word or oath of a 
 Roman Catholic, and this whilst the Trial was pending ; but it is not pagan 
 justice, much less Brit sh fair-play Do as you would be done by seems to 
 he the last thing to cliim our obedience when religious prejudice holds the 
 reins. Church Commonwealth (a leading Church of England <>igan).
 
 THE CONIXGHAM CASE. 
 
 Through the reek of perjury, obscenity, and degradation of the 
 proceedings, the untarnished name of Dr. O'Haran shines more brightly 
 than ever. The fierce light which beat upon his character showed nothing 
 that he should not be proud of. He has fought a grand battle, and emerges 
 from it true priest and true man, worthier even than before of the loving 
 esteem of his co-religionists, and the admiration and respect of the public of 
 Australia. Austral Light 
 
 II. 
 TELEGRAMS AND LETTERS OF CONGRATULATION. 
 
 The Press, however, was not alone in hearty and heartfelt con- 
 gratulations. Dr. O'Haran's co-religionists, as was natural, gave 
 immediate expression to their jubilation, and hundreds of public 
 men throughout Australia, of all denominations, sent telegrams 
 and letters of sympathy to a man who had stood four-square for 
 several months to all the winds of calumny and vituperative assault. 
 Among others who hastened to congratulate the winner of a gallant 
 and long-drawn battle were the Roman Catholic Archbishops of 
 Melbourne, Hobart, Brisbane, and Adelaide, besides numerous 
 other Prelates, and the solid Hierarchy of Australasia. The Hon. 
 R. E. O'Connor, Senator and Vice-President of the Executive 
 Council of the Federal Government, was one of the first to send 
 a letter of sympathy to the Co-respondent. Among other leading 
 public men were their Honors Judges Heydon and Murray, Colonel 
 Frederick Lassetter ; the Right Hon. Edmund Barton, P.C., Pre- 
 mier of the Federal Government; Senator Sir John Downer, K.C., 
 of South Australia ; the Hon. J. H. Want, M.L.C. (N S.W.) ; the 
 Hon. the Speaker of the Victorian Legislative Assembly ; Hon. 
 Dr. Nash, M.L.C. ; Sir Joseph Abbott; Mr. B. R. Wise; Mr. 
 T. A. Coghlan, the Government Statistician of New South Wales ; 
 and hundreds of others whom to mention space alone forbids. 
 Here are three notable letters : 
 
 Selborne Chambers, 
 
 174 Phillip Street, 
 
 3rd April, 1901. 
 " My Dear Doctor, 
 
 " Now that your troubles are all over I wish to tell you how 
 much I appreciate the courageous and manly way in which you have faced 
 this diabolical conspiracy. I have never in all my long experience at the 
 Bar met with a client who has exhibited such downright pluck. You allowed 
 me to take steps and risks, which, though I considered necessary, might 
 have meant ruin had they missed. Fortunately they have been successful, 
 and, believe me, I only echo the feeling of every right-minded man in the 
 community, when I tell you that your gallant fight in the interests 01 the 
 community has endeared you to the hearts of all, no matter what their 
 religion might be. 
 
 "I send you my photo., which I will ask you to accept as a slight tribute 
 to a brave man, who has gained a great victory which will be remembered 
 in Australia for ever, 
 
 " Yours sincerely, 
 
 "J. H. WANT. 1 '
 
 APPENDIX. 357 
 
 "National Park, April 8, igoi. 
 
 "My dear O'Connor, I understand that you are to pieside at the 
 meeting to be held at the Town Hall to-morrow to express sympathy with 
 Dr. O'Haran in the ordeal which he has passed through in the two recent 
 Trials. I am unable to be present, but I hope you will be the bearer of my 
 congratulations to Dr. O'Haran on his \indication. He has no doubt the 
 sympathy of a large majority of unprejudiced citizens, who throughout have 
 kept themselves thoroughly informed of the proceedings in the Case. As one 
 of them, I have already expressed to Dr. O'Haran, through the medium of a 
 friend, my agreement with the verdict of the Jury. But as the meeting is one 
 of active sympathy I do not wish to have it supposed that I stop at cold 
 concurrence with the verdict. The concurrence was a mere conclusion of 
 reason, but I have a warmer feeling of welcome for the exoneration of a 
 man, whose duties are of the gravest, and whose responsibilities are of the 
 heaviest, from charges which I am bound in honesty to say that I never saw 
 reason to believe. 
 
 "EDMUND BARTON." 
 
 Sir John Downer, K.C., a Senator in the Federal Parliament, 
 and one of the most notable of South Australia's public men, wrote 
 as follows : 
 
 "Excuse the liberty I take in writing to you, but it occurred to me that 
 you would not be offended by a warm expression of sympathy from a public 
 man of another Colony, who read every word of the Trial to which you have 
 been subjected. At an early stage i>f the first Trial I came to the conclusion 
 that the whole thing was a wicked conspiracy, and afterwards I was divided 
 between my regret for you and your Church and indignation at the shocking 
 travesty of Justice which the miserable Judge on ;he Bench assisted in. 
 
 " With all sympathy, etc., 
 
 "JOHN DOWNER." 
 
 III. 
 
 PUBLIC MEETINGS. 
 
 Then came the public meetings, held in every centre of note 
 throughout the length and breadth of Australasia, and convened 
 with a view of helping in a substantial manner the champion of 
 public purity and priestly honour. The Town Halls of Sydney and 
 Melbourne were crowded in a phenomenal fashion ; Newcastle, 
 Orange, Alburv, Goulburn, Wagga, Maitland, Armidale, Dubbo, 
 Bourke, Hay, Grafton, and dozens of other towns in New South 
 Wales were wrought to the utmost pitch of enthusiasm ; Brisbane, 
 Cairns, and other places in Queensland ; Launceston, Zeehan, etc., 
 in Tasmania; Geelong and Ballarat, etc., in Victoria ; and towns, 
 hamlets, and Villages in the other States responded with eagerness 
 and substantial effect. Here is a press report of the first, the 
 Sydney, meeting: 
 
 On Tuesday n : ght of the 9th April, a meeting of citizens was held at the
 
 358 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Town Hall, Sydney, to pass resolutions of sympathy and congratulation to 
 Dr. O'Haran, and to make up a testimonial that would reimburse him for the 
 tremendous cost of the Trials. It was the greatest meeting ever held in 
 Australia, both for its numbers and enthusiasm. An oveiflow meeting, 
 thousands strong, had to be held in the basement. The excitement was 
 tremendous, the people were at a white-heat of enthusiasm, and the pent-up 
 feelings of five tense months of suspense and mute indignation, burst forth 
 in tumultuous and tremendous cheering. The feelings of that vast audience, 
 swaying to the strong and eloquent words of great speakers, can be imagined 
 as resembling the surging emotions portrayed by Lawson in his phrase 
 "half-bl'nd with exultant tears." 
 
 The result of that meeting, added to the amount already handed in since the 
 Trial concluded one week before, totalled just on ^2,000, of which ,500 was 
 subscribed by the Priests of the Sydney Archdiocese. 
 
 Amongst the public men present were : Senator O'Connor (who 
 presided), Hon. J. H. Want, K.C., Judge Heydon, Hon. W. P. Crick (State 
 Minister for Lands), Hon. E. W. O'Sullivan (State Minister for Works), 
 Hon. T. M. Slattery, M.L.C., Hon. J. T. Toohey, M.L.C., Messrs. P. E. 
 Quinn, M.L.A., W. J. Spruson, M.L.A., F. Clarke, M.H.R., Sir W. P. 
 Manning, Hon. J. Hughes, M.L.C., D. O'Connor, M.L.A., Major Freehill 
 (Consul for Spain), A. W. Nathan, and Alderman A. G. Ralston (one of Dr. 
 O'Haran's Counsel). 
 
 Space forbids extensive quotation, but the note of the meeting 
 was splendidly struck in the following fervid speech : 
 
 Hon. W P. Crick, Minister for Lands : "I say to those not of our Faith 
 that no one would be more severe on a member of the Clergy who was guilty 
 of a thing like this than the Catho'ics themselves. The floggings and pains 
 that some of the old-time heroes of the Church suffered in some parts of the 
 world that I do not now wish to refer to, were merely of a transitory duration, 
 but that pain and torment suffered under this charge by Dr. O'Haran are 
 eternal this side of the grave. We know, as our Church teaches, that our 
 mothers, our sisters, and our daughters, all have to lay their lives bare to the 
 Clergy in the Confessional. What man, I will use the word in its ordinary 
 appellation, would desire his wife or daughter or sister or anyone else to go 
 to a Clergyman who, he was satisfied, was guilty of conduct like this ? So, 
 when we hear remarks about his co-religionists desiring to shield him we 
 know that the thing is utter rot on the face of it. But he did not want to 
 hush the matter up. The Case came on quickly, with the result that these 
 charges were investigated, and we found the Jury, taken away from their 
 ordinary avocations of selling beer or selling boots, stone-breaking, and other 
 pursuits, asked to try, not the issue, but the most complicated questions 
 concerning the doctrines of the Catholic Church." 
 
 A fine inspiration then seized the " Women of Sydney." Mrs. 
 T. M. Slattery was a moving spirit and a prime organiser. With 
 Mrs. Boesen, wife of the Consul-General for Denmark, she took over 
 the joint treasurership ; the secretaries being Mrs. Freehill (wife of 
 Major Freehill, the Spanish Consul) and Miss Isabella Shiel. 
 These ladies were nobly helped by Mesdames Hughes, Donnelly, 
 Spruson, JDeery, and Johnson, and the Misses Daley and Olliffe. 
 The result of their efforts was a subscription of 750 from the 
 " Women of Sydney," which sum was handed over to Dr. O'Haran 
 at another enormous meeting, held in the Town Hall on the 22nd
 
 APPENDIX. 359 
 
 May. The total sum collected it is not yet possible to estimate ; 
 but it is to be hoped it will represent sufficient to reimburse the 
 Co-respondent in the enormous costs incurred in the Trial. 
 
 IV. 
 
 MRS. BONNER'S CONFESSION. 
 
 Coning-ham's pet witness a witness, by the way, who never 
 was allowed to open her mouth in Court, simply because his Honor 
 ruled her evidence as inadmissible was Mary Bonner. Now dark 
 hints and vague insinuations have been thrown out by the 
 Petitioner and his bigoted partisans to the effect that this poor, 
 weak-minded woman had a vast amount of terrible evidence to 
 give if she were only afforded a chance to give it. The writer, 
 therefore, went in search of this so-valued witness as soon as 
 the Case came to a conclusion. She had, he found, been kept a 
 practical prisoner all through the Trial ; but once released from 
 the espionage under which she was kept she made commendatory 
 haste to remedy somewhat the evil of which she was made by the 
 Coningham party to appear as the author. The services of Mr. 
 William Niland, Solicitor, were called in, and he prepared a 
 Declaration, which Mrs. Mary Bonner signed in the presence of 
 Mr. Frank 'Senior, J.P., on the i2th April, 1901. This affidavit was 
 subsequently published in The Catholic Press of April 2Oth. It 
 set forth in precise terms that Mrs. Bonner's relations with Dr. 
 O'Haran had always been strictly of the character of a minister or 
 a priest with a member of his flock. But, on the 23rd February of 
 the present year, she became acquainted with Coningham, through 
 the machinations of a woman of evil repute, who enacted the 
 part of a sordid procuress of perjury throughout this beautiful 
 negotiation. Coningham played upon his victim per medium of 
 a bottle of whisky, and she was induced, by a promise of 
 money, to bear false witness against Dr. O'Haran, "who had 
 been a good friend to her husband." At the request of the 
 present writer, Mary Bonner signed the following affidavit on 
 April i5th (three days after signing the Declaration just referred 
 to). The second confession, like the first, was prepared by 
 Solicitor W- Niland, and signed before Mr. Robert Miller, J.P., 
 of Erskine Street : 
 
 THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE I5TH APRIL. 
 
 I, Mary Bonner, of Waverley Terrace, Waverley Street, Randwick, do 
 hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows : 
 
 1. I am a married woman living at the above address with my husband, 
 James Bonner. 
 
 2. My husband and I arrived in Australia from England in the latter end 
 of 1884. 
 
 3. There is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that the Very Rev.
 
 360 THE CONINGHAM CASE. 
 
 Dr. O'Haran has at any time or at any place under any circumstances whatever 
 been guilty by word or deed or action of any improper conduct towards me. 
 
 4. I make this declaration voluntarily without any hope of reward and I 
 deny that Mr. Coningham had any ground whatever for making the suggestion 
 at the Trial concerning my relations with Dr. O'Haran that he did. 
 
 And I make this declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true 
 and subject to all the conditions usually attaching to declarations of this solemn^ 
 character according to the Act in that behalf. 
 
 Printed by FINN BROTHERS, 381 Pitt Street, Sydney 
 
 354
 
 THE ORIGINAL 
 
 HAYMARKET WINE & SPIRIT STORES. 
 
 PRINCE of W0LES HOTEL 
 
 CORNER OF 
 
 GEORGE & GIPPS STREETS, 
 
 (Opposite Anthony Hordern & Sons, Haymarket Only.) 
 
 k 
 
 r 
 
 HARRY WALTERS, 
 
 Proprietor. 
 
 All the Best Brands of Wines, Spirits, and Beers, at the very 
 Lowest Spot Cash Prices. 
 
 This Hotel possesses the attributes that tourists and travellers appreciate : 
 Central Location, Liberal Management, Modern Appointments, and Perfect 
 Cuisine Pleasures of the Palate plus Ease and Comfort. 
 
 Special Attention is paid to the 
 
 SINGLE BOTTLE AND C1SE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Every Bottle is ABSOLUTELY PURE, and Purity is healthfulness. 
 
 Country Customers, who are determined to have a case in the house "for 
 hospitality's sake," are reques'ed to write for Price List, as I import direct from 
 Brewers and Distillers, and I am thus enabled to sell cheaper than any other 
 house in the Commonwealth. 
 
 Ppiee Lists mailed Free to any address.
 
 Che "Catholic Prm." 
 
 THE LEADING AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC NEWSPAPER. 
 
 [Published Weekly.] 
 
 Do you want a Vigorous, Fearless, and Indepen- 
 dent Paper? 
 
 Do you want your Interests protected? 
 
 Do you want a Paper to defend your Religion ? 
 
 Do you want a Clean, Wholesome and Instructive Journal 
 for your Children ? 
 
 IF SO, Subscribe to the 
 
 Catholic Press," 
 
 SUBSCRIPTION RATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 
 
 NEW SOUTH WALES 
 
 s. a. s . a. 
 
 Per Year (booked) . . 12 o | Per Half-year (booked) . . 6 o 
 
 ,, ,, (cash in advance) 10 o | ,, ,, (cash in advance) 5 o 
 
 Per Quarter (cash or booked) . . 30 
 
 VICTORIA, SOUTH AUSTRALIA, TASMANIA, WESTERN AUSTRALIA, 
 AND NEW ZEALAND 
 
 S. (1 
 
 Per Year (cash in advance) . . 120 
 Per Half-year (cash in advance) . . 60 
 Per Quarter (cash) . . ..... 39 
 
 QUEENSLAND, AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES 
 
 Per Year (cash in advance) . . 14 4 
 Per Half-year (cash in advance) . . 72 
 Per Quarter (cash) . . . . . . 44 
 
 Remittances may be sent by Cheque (add 6d. for exchange), Money Order, 
 Postal Note, or Penny Postage Stamps, addressed to the Manager. 
 
 A Specimen Copy will be forwarded Free to any part of 
 the world on receipt of name and address. 
 
 4 'Catholic Press 1 ' Office, 
 
 26 Market Street, A. C BURKE. Manager. 
 
 Sydney.
 
 QUEENSLAND 
 
 (Bnwral, School, & Catljolu laok 
 
 Francis MacDonnell, 
 
 BOOKSELLER, 
 
 STATIONER, NEWSAGENT & GENERAL IMPORTER, 
 Dublin Book and Stationery Warehouse: 
 
 The Largest Catholic Book Depot in the State. 
 Write /or Price Lists 
 
 187 Queen Street, Brisbane. 
 
 WMEFfcE TO 
 
 WHY TO . . 
 
 Andy Flanagan's 
 Burdekin Hotel, 
 
 STREET: 
 
 To see the Famous Lock of Shamus O'Brien's Cell, and hear the Latest 
 
 Sporting News. 
 
 William P. iiinehan, 
 
 ir IBonksdkr, 
 
 UaoksrUtr, 
 
 The Largest Collection of Catholic Literature in Victoria- 
 - _ 309 Little Collins Street. 
 
 MELBOURNE,
 
 WYNYARD 
 
 HOTEL. 
 
 Srsfiine I (2 foresee; 
 
 SYDNEY. 
 
 Right in the Centre of the City, -one minute from the General 
 
 Post Office. 
 
 Every Convenience to Trams, Boats, and Theatres. 
 
 Undei 1 the direct supervision of 
 
 MRS. C. M. ROBINSON. 
 
 EVERYTHING PURE AND DELICIOUSLY GOOD. 
 Telephone, 35O8. 
 
 THE GUARANTEED PURE "POT-STILL" WHISKIES 
 
 OF 
 
 Che Dublin Distillers' Co., Ltd., 
 
 ARE 
 
 GEO. ROE & Go's (Established 1757) 
 
 'G.R. 
 
 WM. JAMESON & Co's - (Established 1752) 
 
 4 'HARP BRAND" 
 
 DUBLIN WHISKY DISTILLERY Co's (Est. 1872) 
 
 "D.W.D" 
 
 GENUINE MALT WHISKIES. 
 
 JOHN MEAGHER & CO., 
 Australasian Representatives. 82 Pitt Street, Sydney.
 
 <5A?EY'S HOTEL 
 
 ^ AND 
 
 TffIKE & SPIRIT STORE, 
 
 Telephone 2310 
 
 CORNER GEORGE & LIVERPOOL STREETS, SYDNEY. 
 
 Absolutely 
 
 m 
 
 Per Case 
 2 10 .. 
 
 the Cheapest House to buy your supplies- 
 
 (T* LOOK AND COMPARE PRICES. 
 
 Scotch Whisky. 
 
 GILBEY'S STRATHMILL (SCOTCH) 
 
 Per Bottle 
 ..43 
 
 270.. 
 2 13 .. 
 250.. 
 2 70 .. 
 2 17 . . 
 26" .. 
 
 Walker's Special (Red Collar) . . ..40 
 Buchanan's House of Commons (White Seal) 4 6 
 Dewar & Sons (Special) .. .. ..39 
 Crawford's P. & O. . . . . ..40 
 Dickens .. .. .. .. ..50 
 ARGYLE *** (SPECIAL VALUE) .. ..40 
 
 2 14 .. 
 2 12 
 
 Irish Whisky. 
 
 John Jameson & Sons 
 GEORGE ROE & CO (10 YR. OLD).. 
 
 ..46 
 ..46 
 
 2 10 .. 
 300 
 
 D. W. D. .. .. .. 
 
 Brandy. 
 
 LEROY LIQUEUR 
 
 ..43 
 ..56 
 
 2 10 
 
 LEROY * (SPECIAL VALUE) 
 
 ..46 
 
 3 16 . . 
 3 11 .. 
 240.. 
 3 11 .. 
 
 376 
 
 Grand Supreme (Crack Cognac) 
 Hennessey *** 
 Boomerang 
 Martell *** 
 
 Gin 
 
 J.iXK.Z. (LARGEST SIZE) 15 BOTTLES 
 
 ..66 
 ..60 
 ..39 
 ..60 
 
 ..49 
 
 310.. 
 310.. 
 2 n .. 
 200.. 
 
 cvr 240.. 
 2 5 .. 
 2 6 ! 
 
 Key ,, ,,15 Bottles .. 
 Night Cap .. ., 15 
 Gilbey's Dry (Doctor's recommend) .. 
 J. & J. Vicars (unsweetened) 
 
 Schnapps. 
 
 Silverstream, large bottle, Special quality 
 small ,, ,, ,, 
 
 WOLFE'S. LARGE BOTTLE 
 
 ..43 
 ..43 
 ..36 
 ..36 
 
 ..40 
 ..20 
 ..40 
 
 2 7 '. .. 
 
 Per Case, 4 doz. 
 1 is .. 
 
 ,, small bottle 
 
 Ales and Stouts. 
 
 McEwan's Ale, quarts 
 ., pints 
 Guinness' Stout, quarts 
 ,, ,, pints 
 
 ..20 
 
 .. 10 
 ..07 
 .. 10 
 ..07 
 
 1 18 .. 
 
 
 Goods delivered Free of Charge in City and Suburbs.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 A 000104480 9 
 
 
 
 \ 

 
 inn 
 S