The Langworthy Case.

Evening Star, Issue 7343, 15 October 1887, Page 2 (Supplement)

The Langworthy Case.

The following letter from Bircham and Co. (Mr Langworthy's counsel) appeared in a recent issue of 'The Times' : Sir,—As the litigation in this case is now closed, and Mr Langworthy's interests will therefore not be prejudiced by our making this communication, we think it due to ourselves to reply to some observations which Mr Brandon (Mr Langworthy's present solicitor) is stated to have made in Court on the final hearing before the Official Receiver. Mr Brandon is reported to have said that Mr Langworthy came to England in March, 1886, with the intention of putting an end to the litigation, but that circumstances occurred which prevented its being done; that Mr Langworthy was advised that " certain legal arguments should take place before he submitted to an arrangement," and " the legal attack removed before he made the overtures which were then present to his mind "; and that "the effect of this advice was to get him adjudicated a bankrupt." What Mr Langworthy's object in coming to Englandin March, 1886, was, we know not; but, if he came with the intention now attributed to him, he did Bot communi- | cate with us on the subject. We were not aware that Mr Langworthy had been in England until he had left, and first gleaned the information that he had been here from the plaintiffs solicitors. As we were not consulted by Mr Langworthy as to the suggested " overtures," it follows that they were not frustrated by any advice from us, or that bankruptcy was the consequence of that advice. Mr Brandon states that Mr Langworthy had no knowledge for some time of the first order for alimony in August, 1885. On the day the order was made (August 7, 1885) we wrote letters to Mr Langworthy informing him of it, and addressed them to two places, in order that there might be no miscarriage. A few days afterwards we forwarded copies of the shorthand notes, and subsequently wrote him for a cheque to enable us to pay the alimony and costs. The cheque was never received. We felt it would be unfair to an absent client not to do what we could on his behalf, but, when matters appeared to us to render his return to Europe absolutely necessary, we took every means to induce him to come over in order that he might answer the serious charges publicly made against him, and support by hia own evidence the state-

mentsg&hadpwvfcrasly.inaUe to'ns for the purpose lof his deMcetb the legal prooeediugs. He "accordingly came to Europe in July last, and we saw him- on the Continent and explained to him the course wo thought he ought to pursue j but failing to persuade him to follow our advice we wrote him that in the circumstances we could nolonger continue to Act for him. _ With respect to the more important facta in dispute in the case, we need scarcely say that we acted throughout on, and with entere faith in, Mr Langworthy's statement submitted to us. Mr Langworthy's prolonged absence from England and the difficulty of getting direct communication with him prevented us from testing those statements as soon and as completely as we, should have done.