A STRANGE, TURE STORY.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 179, 2 August 1887, Page 6

A STRANGE, TURE STORY.

The Langworthy Marriage.

CHAPTER XLIV.

MOTHER-IN-LAW AT BAY.

It is extraordinary that this case should have been so long before the courts without ever being brought prominently before the public. But among the most precious prerogatives of wealth is the power of buying silence. The destruction of the poor is not Bp much their poverty as the fact that poverty makes them dumb and inarticulate, and unable to make their cries audible in the cars of men. The Sybarite whose crumpled rose leaf pains him can make the welkin ring with his disgust, while whole generations of ill-fed toilers, whose daily sufferings cease not between the cradle and the grave, pass away without making their anguished moanings heard beyond their squalid hovels and their poisonous slums. What was the primal purpose of Parliament, the'see'ret of its power ? It was a platform from'which' grievances otherwise unheard could bo thundered in the ears of lungs, and' being heard, can compel redress. Hence the first instinct of the oppressor Is always to gag. Hence, in relation to one immense field of human suffering, that of the wrongs of women, the dominant sex has invented the convenient doctrine, preached diligently by Saturday Reviewer* and the like, that it is more heinous to speak of an outrage than to commit it. Hence, when the publication of the facts of the Langworthy marriage began, the " Saturday Review," which has no word of reprobation for the infamous Mr Langworthy, suggested that we ought to be sent to penal servitude for life, and this, it said candidly, we deserved all the more if this story was true than if it were false. So very wrong is it to squeal when you are being choked. « When the Hearing of the interpleader came on the working of this natural instinct, which seeks to hush up all tales of wrong and bury in silence the grievances which publicity alone can- remedy, was curiouslj illustrated in the effort made to keep the case as much as possible from the public. The desire for privacy enforced by motives of convenience led to an application that the evidence of the chief witness niio-ht not bs heard in Court. Mr LangwoT'thy's sovereign contempt for our courts has already been noticed. His mother's idea appears to have been that the business of the court laws must rank second to her convenience. She obiected to attend for examination in bankruptcy the other day because she was giving a hunt party, and when her claim came on to the goods peized by her daughter-in-law, she demurred. Why should she trouble to go to town to be placed in the witness-box, to be crossexamined before judge and jury, and all for a paltry L 127 ? Of course she could have obviated all that by abandoning her claim to the "paltry sum," but that was not to be thought of. What was to be done?

When wealth wishes, there is usually some, means of realising its desires. Mr Thomas Wilson Danby, clerk to Messrs Bircham, is a gentleman of resource, and it was determined to make application to have a private examination of Mrs Langworthy, sen., down at Maidenhead. So, without more ado, the necessary affidavits were sworn, and application made to Master Kay for leave to examine Mrs Langworthy, sen., at the Great Western Hotel, Maidenhead, instead of her being summoned to court. Master Kay granted the private examination. Mrs Langworthy, iun., appealed against {it to Baron Huddlcston, who reversed Master Kay's decision, and ordered Mrs Langworthy, sen., to come to town. ol)9 The episode is too characteristic to be passed over without a few extracts from the affidavits. Mr To-Ihe-best-of-my belief Danby ewore on Dec. 7, 1886, that old Mrs Langworthy was a material and necessary witness on her own behalf, and that by reason of the present state of her health he was informed by her medical adviser that it would be highly dangerous for her to attend to give evidence. The doctor, George Edward Moore, of Redcroft, Maidenhead, swore that Mrs Langworthy had had a severe paralytic stroke, and that h© was of opinion that " it will be highly dangerous for her to attend in a court of law for the purpose of giving evidence. The excitement of doing this would in my opinion be very prejudical to the, health of the said Elizabeth Hannah Langworthy, and I have informed her that I can under no circumstances, as her medical adviser, consent to her attending in courfa for the purposes aforesaid." The respectability of Messrs Bircham, and the emphatic declaration of Dr Moore, no doubt led Master Kay to grant the proposed examination at Maidenhead. But Mrs Lang worthy's daughter-in-law, who had some experience of the value of these declarations, filed an answering affidavit, fn which she roundly asserted that the application was little better than a fraud on the Court. Here are passages from the affidavit: — ■■...- '

I have good reason to believe that this application is not a hona fide one, but made to prejudice my case before a jury and that the said Elizabeth Hannah Langworthy will ndt.suffer in health by appearing' in court for cross-examination be j fore a jury. • Mrs Langworthy then pointed. Out that as Dr. Moore was the family doctor of her mother,in-law, "as such he is not such a disinterested deponent that tliis honourable Court ■ can rely solely on his evidence." Further, he did not assert that he was now attending the old lady, nor did he mention when .the. paralytic stroke had taken place; The affidavit continued :

The said Elizabeth Hannah Langworthy haa throughout the proceedings out of which this interpleader issue arises done her best to aid and abet her son, Edward Martin Langworthy, in treating Avith contempt the orders of the Divorce Division of this Court.

The said E. H. Langworthy is ,an exceedingly energetic and to all appearances healthy woman. ' In April last she travelled to Paris and back (where she met her son, by the by, on the eve of his escape from the jurisdiction of the Court). On or about the 26th of October last she.gave' a large entertainment of amateur theatricals, and I am informed and believe that she is about to give another entertainment and aball. . ... A short .while ago she went to Dartmouth to deliver an address to a large number of emigrants wha were starting for Buenos Ayres. .."'.' Owing to the contempt of the said order of the Court on the part of the, claimant's said son I am utterly destitute, and am unable to provide the fees to enable me to employ a doctor to examine the claimant on my behalf. The proposed private examination of the said claimant will necessitate my incurring large additional expenses in the way of fees to counsel, and I am unable to pay them. I already owe my solicitors large sums of money, and if the plaintiff continues to connive with the said E. M. Lan^vorthy I cannot enforce the orders of thesaid Court or pay what I owe. \ That was tolerably plain speaking. Old Mrs Langworfchy, in the enforced absence of her son, manages his affairs, and has from first to last been very hostile to her daughter-in-law. She was determined not to let her have a sixpence that she could keep fcom her, and at the same time she was benb upon having the proceedings ad i listed to her own convenience. So, with lier valiant; henchman Daxioy ehe "again returned to the charge. This time they brought a .second affidavit, sworn by Drflames Wynyard GoacW, of Windsor. ~

Fro'in this it appear^ that the paralytic stroke- which was alleged as: a reason why she'could not appear in Court in 1887 occurred in 1875 ! Dr. Goach closes his affidavit as follows :—

On December 30th last, I professionally examined Mrs Elizabeth Hannah Langworthy, and I found that there was'still an imperfection of the heart's action, winch,added to her present nervous condition resulting from the aforesaid paralytic seizures, would render any excitements, such as an examination io court, most dangerous for her. I have read a copy of the affidavit of Dr. Moore, and I'confirm the same in every respect. Old Mrs Langworthy herself swore an affidavit. It is interesting' chiefly because, while denying that she in any way aided or abetted her son Edward Martin Langwei'fehy in treating the decrees of the Court, with contempt, she incidentally admits, that she; knew that he had been ii> England in Apil 1886. As this was subsequently "absolutely denied " by Mr Yate Lee, as counsel for Mr Langworthy, and '! to the bes,t of my belief" cfenied by Mr Thomas Wilson Danby, it is worth while quoting the passage from the old lady's affidavit. It runs thus :— ~..

I say that I was totally Ignorant that my son had any intention to visit England, as in paragraph 6 of said affidavit is a,tatbd, neither vim I aware, thai he liati Itefin in England until after his departure. Mrs Langworthy admitted that she had beon over to Paris in April, 1886, admitted the theatrical entertainment", but added, "I took no part whatever in the performance." Sne denied the intention to give another entertainment or a ball, "though possibly she might give a children's party shortly." She admitted having gone to Dartmouth in 1884, not to address emigrants, but to say' good-bye individually to ten or twelve who were going out to Buenos Ay res. I am apprehensive that should I be compelled to give evidence in Court in this issue that the excitement arid worry incident thereto will bring about a-further recurrence of the stroke i have mentioned.

Finally she concludes:— I am not a willing plaintiff in this issue, but the defendant having seized certain cattle, goods, and chattels belonging to me under tne proceedings hereinbefore referred to, I am compelled to claim my own. The affidavits were read beforo Baron Huddleston. When they came' to the passago saying, that although she had given a theatrical entertainment she had taken no part in it—"l should think- not," he remarked, "an old lady of seventy. 1" When he had heard everything he reversed Master Kay's permission to hold a private examination. "My room in chambers," said he, "is as warm' arid comfortable as1 the Great Western Hotel. I will take the examination there. It is always an advantage that the tribunal that tried the case should see the witnesses themselves." He ordered the intevpleader to bo tried before himself without a jury in chambers on February 3. Thus old Mrs Langwoi'thy had been defeated as to the examination at Maidenhead. But she had triumphed in securing privacy. Proceedings in chambers areseldom or never reported in the press. Mrs Langworthy, jun., had not the means with which to pay for a shorthand note. So the only verbatim report of the interpleader was taken by the writers employed by Messrs Bircham. It is usual when only a single report) is taken for the shorthand writer to supply a transcript of his notes on payment to those who may be interested in the case. But on this occasion it was forbidden. When this narrative was in course of preparation we applied to Mr James Towell, the shorthand writer, in 33, Chancery Lane, to procure for us a transcript of the notes. Here is his reply :— Laxgworthy v. Langworthy.l , 33, Chancery Lane, London, ■* ■■"*' f<:'!" B'lp^ff27;i'BßV. n Dear Sir,—The only shorthand writers engaged in this case were Messrs Walsh, to, whom I have applied for a transcript of the days you mention. They, in the ordinary course, have written Messrs Bircham's for permission to supply me with transcripts, and have just shown me a letter .saying that Messrs Walsh are, not to allow anyone to have a transcript of any notes in this matter.^ It will be impossible, therefore, to obtain a transcript. I have ascertained for certain that no other shorthand writers took notes in this matter.—Yours truly, Jas. Towell. So zealous can solicitors be to clap the extinguisher of silence over the actions of their clients. . 'chapter" xlv, MUZZLING THE if TIMES." We have received the following letter :— Itiomildbe very interesting to the readers of your graphic story of the Langworthy case ifymi vimdd mention in your next issue'where they can find a report of the proceedings which remlted in the decision that the marriage de facto was invalid. I have turned over the files of the " Times" for the date named in your summary of yesterday, but camtot' find any record of the case. — Your obedient sertfant, L. E. X.

TKe inquiry is natural.. The answer sheds another stream of light into dark places. But, before explaining the mystery, we give the following references sent by another correspondent as to where the reports of the ciises may be found which may be useful:—:"

You are, of course., aware that the appeal in this case is reported in the "authorised" and other reports 5 But many of your reader? niay be" glad of the following references:— Law Reports. 11 Probate Division ■, 85. 55 " Law Journal" Reports (P. D. & A), 33. 54 *' Law Times " Reports, 77b'. 34 " "Weekly Reporter," 35b. In some of the reports the facts are stated pretty fully. , . , Argus, with his hundred eyes, js accepted as the mythical prototype of the,modern ptfess. But Argus, for all his hundred eyes,,was■ charmed to sleep on the fateful occasion by the rogue Hermes ; and so it sometimes with the newspapers. There is no place in the world like a law court for publicity, and yet, although the Langworthy case has never been out of the law courts for the last four years, the public has been iri almost aB total ignorance of the facts" as" if the case had bean tried in the law courts of the Argentine Republic, . This was due to a variety of causes, some of which we have already detailed. But some of the modes by which-a too inquisitive public was kept from poking its nbseintothe cupboard in which stood the family skeleton .of the Langworthys have still to be described. Needless to say, the Messrs Bircham figure as conspicuously and—from their client's point of view—as creditably in this as in all the other operations' which have been set forth in the course of this Strange True Story. The zeal of the great firm of solicitors iri the cause of their client Larigworthy is indeed almost beyond belief. But nothing that we have hitherto described can have prepared' the reader for their crowning exploit. The " Times "is no'longer what it was in the days vvhen Kinglake sang its almost supernatural might. But the "Times", still continues to be regarded as "the asylum of the world." As Mr Kinglake described it in-one of the most familiar passages of his inimitable prose : "The prince who was claiming a kingdom, the servant who Wanted a place, the motheu who had lost her boy, they all went thither; thither Folly ran hurrying,' and was brought to wholesome parley with Wisdom ; thither went righteous anger; thither-also went hatred and malice. Over.

all" this throng of appellants men unknown satin judgment,, and—yiolehtyy, perhaps, but never corruptly—a rough 6ort of justice was done." How, then, did Messrs Bircham ibarthe-door of this M asylum of thewbrld " to Mrs Langworthy, so that not even a whisper of her sorrow-ladeh cry should be heard? " Upon paying the sum required by'the company," said Kinglake, . " any person could' cause whatever'ho choae-to be inserted-ill the papor aa an advertisement." Buty even its advertisement sheet was closed to Mrs Langworthy—and closed by Messrs Bircham.

To describe how this was done, it is necessary to retrace our steps and reverb to the year 1883; " The alleged child," born in August, seemed likely to die, and the doctor doubted whether it could be reared. Mrs LangwQrtby, even in the midst of all her trouble, never lost hope that if her hus.band knew that a loving child was born to him,, the evil demon that possessed him miglit be exorcised by the1 Baby's smile. Little Gladys had not Been born two days before her mother, all weak and worn as she was, insisted on being allowed to write a passionate appeal to the father to return and see-his child. She'posted-■ it to "'Mr1 LaWworthy, care of Messrs- Bireham; to; po forwarded." Messrs Bircham promptly sent it back, saying that they had no instructions-to forward- letters.

Then-she wrote to Mrs Elizabeth Hannah Langworthy, enclosing a copy of the little franddaughter's certificate of birth and of aptiem,- and also addressed another letter to her husband, at Maidenhead. Both these1 letters came back \inOpened. Meanwhile the baby, poor wee mite; which she was unable to nurse; from-extreme exhaustion, was ill. The doctor doubted whether it could bo reared; The thought thatitmight die beforo ever its father knew it had been born, haunted her sleeping and Waking.- How could she communicate with-him? All avenues seemed closed, and then the-thought occurred to her, Why not advertise-in the "Times'?" She sa-t down and wibt© the following advertisement>:±- ---■ Edward Langworthy, cruising1 in the Plate, is^ asked te communicate with his wife, as'his child is ill—Address Mrs Langworthy, office of the-'' Times." She enclosed 5s for the advertisement and Is for receiving the answer. . She' waited with feverish anxiety to1 see the advertisement in the "Times." It"> did not appear the first, day. She thought perhaps it had been' crowded out. But the second day and the third passed, and still she looked in vain for the appearance* of her" advertisement. Nearly a week passedl, still no insertion nor any reply from Printing-HouseSquare. At last ahe vrrote to ask them" what if meant. She received the following reply :— Madam,—There has been leceivecl ft lette 1" from Messrs Birchata arid Co., who act p_ro' fessipnally for Mr Langwprthy's family and they object to the advertisement being inserted in its present shape. We, therefore, retxirn thefo—Your obedient servant, John Knight, Chief Clef k. CHAPTER XLVI. HOW IT WAS DONH. Wilßif Mrs Langworthy first informed the writer of this narrative that Messrs Bircham and Co. had stopped her advertisement by the "Times it seemed absolutely impossible. .But on making closer inquiries, the story, although still strange, became credible, and the details leave no room for furtherdoubti' On making inquiry at the " Times " office, we were informed that a faint memory of some dispute with Mrs Langworfchy still lingers in the advertisement department. But it was three years and more ago. A ?new chief clerk reigns in the place of John Knight, deceased, and no positive information can be afforded the curious as, to how it was that Messrs Bircham and Co. were led to impose a veto upon Mrs Lang worthy's advertisement. Mrs Langworthy, however, has a lively rfterfiorj- tff thfc altercation between herself and Mr Knight, and she stil} remembers vividly the substance of the correspondence.. On receiving the news that Messrs Bircham had stopped her advertisement,' and so closed the last channel by which she could communicate with her husband as to the condition of her infant daughter, she blazed up in fierce indignation, and forthwith despatched this letter to the editor of the " Times " —as if he, poor innocent, has anything to do with the advertisement department ! Mrs E. M. Langworthy prese'nits her compliments to the editor of the " Times," and wishes to know how Messrs Bircham knew of her advertisement. Mrs Langworthy -■ was not aware that private correspondence was shown to any person outside the office. Mrs E. M. Langworthy has consulted an editor, who" says he ck^s not .believe even the' shiallest local paper would allow itself to be controlled by any one person, even though that person had the most ample means. Mi-sE. M. Langworthy does not question the authority of the" Times " to reject, an advertisement, but she strongly objects to its being shown outside the office., In Mrs E. M. Langworthy's opinion, emphatically the right course was to insert the advertisement for whicQ they wero paid; or, rejecting it, to return it direct to the. sencler.

It was a relief to .blow off steam in this fashion, and Mrs Langworthy undoubtedly had good cause for indignation. Mr KnigKfc wrote back asking her what she wanted him to do. She replied tha^ she would call and tell him,, and in tixe meantime asked him to ,ke?p the correspondence until she cajxie. It, was not for a long_ tims after that she called at the office in ;;Prihting BCoqse Square.V, Ci t V , 4l j She asked for Mr Knight, and on receiving her card, he came down. At first he cdulfl. not remember anything ab'ouf it till a clerk whispeied in his, ear, when he turned rather red, and said, " Oh, I think I. have some recollection," and lo! tjiere on the table, in a heat little pile ready against her visit, lay the correspondence.' " I want to know," s,a|dShe, •< why you did not put in that advertisement ?" . " Because Messrs. Bircham objected to its and warned us that if we published it we exposed ourselves to an action for libel." , , '

"Bircham J" said; .Mrs Langworthy. "How did Bircham know chat I had sent: the advertisement to you unless you went arid told.them?", . . cv "Well*" said M(|Kniglit;" * Messrs Bircham first wrote ana then called.'* '

" Called^ called," interrupted Mrs Langwbrthy, scornfully, "in order to whisper into your ear this, slanders theyidare not write! Was that not so ?"

Mr Knight was silent. . ; , "Would you let me see Bircham's letter then?' '

Mr Knight handed her a letter from Mpssrs Birxsham arid Ca, addressed to the " Times '', cautioping them against publishing anything that came from "Jjangwortihy, Long, or Liunley,", as it might " damage their client." The letter seems to have been a communication sent round by Messrs Bircham as: a precautionary measure, to close in advance the advertisement columns of the press to any communication by Mrs ( Langworthy. [ ~ ~ With . this caution before them, the " Timea" no sooner ; received Mrs Langworthy's advertisement than .they sent it down to Messrs pircham to ask for instructions. Of course no one can blame the "Times" for this precaution..,, itis;one which any newspaper would take when cautioned by v. firm of the respectability of; Messrs Bircnam as to the possibily of libel lurking in.any advertisement, ~.,,,.,■),{' - Messrs, Bircham's reply, whiphwap next showi* Mffi,Lapgworthyj.^jbQw^iveri

j somewhat unusual. Jty intimate^ *^ a^ Messrs Birohaii(i objected to the publication iof the advertisement as it stood ; but it went jon to suggest that'they would hob object if Ithe advertisementwas inserted in some such iform as the f.ollowing :_ | Mr Edward Langwortiiy, cruising, in i the Plate, i's asked to write to L. 1 To allow Mrs Langwotthy's advertisement to be edited and revised and mutilated out of all shape by tho soli' citors of the man with whom she was carrying on a lawsuit was too much even for the "Times." But not-knowing exactly what to do, they did nothing. Hence Mrs Langvvorthy's remonstrance. -'Surely," said she, " the proper couvse to have taken would have been to havew"Uten moat once returning my money, and saying that as' you had received, communications from the solicitors of Mr Langwocthy you preferred not to insert the advertisement." Mr Knight stammered out; some excuse, and Mrs Langworthy'turned to go. She said, " Sir, if I had been a man, you would never have treated me so." (To be Continued To isiori ow).