A STRANGE, TRUE STORY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 810, 9 September 1887, Page 8

A STRANGE, TRUE STORY.

THE LANGWORTHY MARRIAGE. (From the Pall Mall Budget.) (Continued.) CHAPTER LV. HAD FROM LIFE'S MYSTERY. Mrs Langworthy, after writing out a brief outline of her story, sent, it in to the committee of the (. harity Organisation Society. They sent to make inquiries. She was out. She called at the office to give them the name of her mother and the address of her solicitors. When her story was read, the committee, with one consent, agreed that it wus too strange to be true. It was decided, however, to make inquiries of Messrs Lnmiey, and the result was that Mrs Langworthy received a summons to wait upon Mr F. A. Burrows, at 21, Montagu Square. Mr Burrows (old her frankly that he had at first utterly disbelieved her story, but that her solicitcrs had satisfied the Committee that the facta were even worse than she described them. Therefore, although the Committee bad no funds available for the relief of such cases, they had determined upon the exceptional treatment of an exceptional case, and they had decided to grant her from 20s to 253 per week for six weeks. In that time she might find employment or something might turn up. She owed for two waeks’ lodging at Fitzrov Square. It was necessary to quit that place and go to cheaper quarters. Mrs Edwaraef-Jones brought her ±'3 to clear her account, and she took fresh lodgings at 7s per week in a small room in the lop story of a house in Keppel-street. The Sunday before she left Fifzrov Square is still memorable to her as the blackest and darkest day she ever spent—even blacker and darker than that in which she first learned heir husband’s determination to cast her adrift. She did not then know whether the C.O.S. would take up her case. All she knew was that she had only sixpence in the world —:he last sixpence left of the money for which the had pawned her earrings. She was in a spirit of mad revolt against everything and everybody. God had deserted her. Everyone was against her j why need she scruple what she did ! How conld she teip herself ? It would not be her fault whatever happened. She roamed about like a mad thing that cold March afternoon, with a dreadful feeling that she was losing control of her senses. Temptations from which she bad fled with horror returned more alluring than ever. She need not want for money if ! And what did it matter after all? And then the thought of it made her almo3t scream with terror. It was a wild and frenzied day. At last she got back to the hotel, and composed herself with a grsat effort. Never had she seemed so bright, so gay, in such excellent spirits. She laughed and talked with the company at tsble. She chatted away to amuse an invalid upstairs who envied her capital spirits, and yet even when she talked there was ever the thought, 4 How little you know of the demon in my heait.’ At last bedtime came, and the was alone. Next morning the freDzy had left her. In its place came a dull despair, with longing for death. She would put her room in order, pack her box, and then, after writing a statement of her vain attempts to secure justice, go out and end the life which teemed to be useless for all but suffering. Strangely horrible at times is the idea of suicids ! This time it took the curious shape of poisoning herself in the Abbey, and sleeping quietly away out of a heartless world. She resisted it partly from want of energy even to take the decisive step, and after a time theidea ceased to haunt her, the mind recovered its balance, aud the £3 of the Charity Organisation Society that paid ber arrears once more revived her flickering hops. Why, it will be asked. a= it has since been asked, did she not ask help from those who were looking into her case. Her answer is' very simple. Nothing chills sympathy and arouses suspicion so much as a demand for money. She had seen it so often. 4 Oh, that is what she wants, is it?’ and the door has bean shut, not again to be re-opened. If they had not the insight to see she was in absolute want they would probably not have the heart to supply her necessities if she frankly stated her need. Sccb at least was her experience, and she waa probably right. CHAPTER LVI. SOME POLITE LETTER WRITING. Meanwhile what was being done by those who had promise to look into her case ? She asked that question often enough with eager pertinacity. But even to the New Journali-m it is impossible to do everything at once, and political exigencies, visits to Ireland, and the like enforced delay. The matter, besides, was , a very serious one. To touch it ineffectively 1 was worse than uot touching it at all. A mere article or two might be written easily enough, but if it was worth doing at all it was worth doing thoroughly, aud doing thoroughly meant time. Above all, first and foremost, it was necessary to abandon all attempts tosurpresa names. If the appeal must be made to the great public, publicity of the fullest kind was indispensable, Mrs LaDgworthy shrank from the ordeal. The conditions, however, were inexorable and at last she reluctantly consented. Before a line was written it was pointed out that aB Mr Langwortby could not be communicated with, application must be made to his solicitors and to his mother for any information which they might be able to give. Mrs Langwortby, knowing well bow many who would have helped her had been deterred from going any further in the matter after they had communicated with Messrs Bircham, shuddered at the suggestion. It was, however, so obviously necessary and just that her objections were overruled, and the following letter was sent on the last day in February to Messrs Bircham and Co : 4 As I am engaged in preparing for the press a narrative of the case of Langwortby v. Langwirlhy as illustrative of the marriage laws, I shall esteem it afavor if you can place me in possession of any information which you have which may be necessary for the full understanding of the case [so far as it concerns yt ur client, Mr Langwortby]. The story, as i

I have it at present, is full of interest, and, as it is certain to attract universal attention, I am anxious to have all the faces, dates, etc., ar exact as possible.’ A similar letter, omitting the phrase enclosed in brackets, was sent to Mrs Langworthy, sen., at Maidenhead. Mrs Langworthy did Dot reply. After a couple of days Messrs Bircham sent th« following answer 4 4G, Parliament-street, YVeßtminater, S.W., March 2, 1887. 4 Sir, —The subject-matter of the suit to which you refer being entirely of a private character, and affecting only the persons who are parties to it, we can recognise no right on your part to the information you ask for, especially when you tell us that it is for publication. You have probably heard but one side of the case. There is another which has not yet been heard, and we should warn you against giving currency to statements which may prove to be not only inaccura'.e, but may lead to trouble hereafter.—We are, sir, your obedient eervants, 4 Bircham and Co.’ The veiled menace in this letter, and the insinnation that there was another side to the story which had not been beard, were perhaps regarded as calculated to warn off anyone who contemplated referring to the subject. They had, however, exactly the opposite effect. Next day Messrs Bircham received the following letter : 4 The subject-matter of the suit to which I referred, being one of great public importance, and having been adjudicated upon by courts of justice, can in no sense bo regarded as one of au entirely private character,” nor can I for a moment admit any right on your part or on that of the other party to the suit, to object to the publication of the facts, with such comments as justice may demand. 4 1 need not say that I claim no right to demand any information from yon, and I am rather surprised at the tone of your reply. As I'was dealing with a matter of public interest in which your client’s interests were concerned, I wrote you privately before taking auy steps towards publication, to advise you of my iutention, and to ask you whether you would be so good as to afford me the information necessary to enable me to avoid any mistakes from your client s point af view. 4 To this you reply : 44 You have probably but heard one side of the case. There is another which has not yet been heard ” —and yet your Ittier is in effect a refusal to let me hear it ! * I must, however, take exception to the stateuitnt that I have only heard one side of the case. You have repeatedly placed your Bide of the case before Her Majesty’s judges, and I could not do you the injustice of supposing that you have suppressed any vital facts necessary for the full understanding of the case of your client from the knowledge of tbe Court before which you were pleading his cauße. I would therefore respectfully ask you to re-consider your objection to afford me information, especially now that you hint that you have the facts in your possession which you have never laid before the courts.’ To this Messrs Bircham replied as follows : 4 46, Parliament-street, Westminster, 4 S.W., March 4, 1887. 4 Sir, —We have your letter of yestsrday, but see no reason to alter the opinion expressed in ours of the 2nd inst. 4 We do not dispute your right to comment in your journal upon matters of admittedly public interest, but the expediency or good taste of doing so in cases where private interests are involved is very questionable, and we deprecate strongly tte idea of a journalist interviewing and seeking information from the confidential advisers of a suitor under cover of a suggestion that accuracy merely is the object sought. We hope we undeftcand our duty to our client sufficiently to decline to be parties to any such proceeding.—We are, sir, your obedient servants, 4 Bircham and Co.’ Here the ground was changed. It was no longer pretended that the case was one entirely of a private character f the ground was shifted to one of 'expediency or good taste.’ As it was also implied that an attempt had heen made to tempt them into a breach of their duty to their client by asking them to prevent tte publication of any inaccurate statements concerning a case m which his private interests were so deeply concerned, the following reply was despatched to 46, Parliament Btreet, which closed the correspondence : 4 I asked you for information which, in the interest of your client, I thought you might wish to lay before anyone who was about to publish a narrative of the case of Langworthy v. Langworthy. 4 If you think the interests of your client are best served by refusing my request, I can well understand that you may have good reasons for eo doing. I only regret that you should seem to misconstrue t e object of my application. I asked for no interview, aud, in your client’s abteoce iu South America, naturally addressed myself to his confidential advisers. 4 In order that there may be no suspicion, however absurd, such aa you insinuate, of any desire on my part to take an unfair advantage of Mr Langwortby by communicating with you, his legal advisers, I sha’l at, once send a complete copy of this correspondence, to Mrs Langworthy, sen., of Maidenhead. , 4 To this course you can offer no objection.’ After that, Messrs Bircham troubled us with no written communications until we received the letter which wo published the other day, a letter which probably did more to convince tbe public that there was not ar - other side to the case than anything that has yet appeared. CHAPTER LVII. AT THE AGRICULTURAL HALL. After answering every'advertisement, probable or improbable, in every newspaper, and all in vain, Mrs Langworthy one morning, while glancing over the adverl Dement columns of the 4 Daily Telegraph,’ saw an advertisement 4 for a young lady ’ of good personal address. She answered it listlessly,stating the old hackneyed phrase that she was 4 a lady by birth and education,’ etc. In the afternoon of next day she was surprised by receiving a letter, dated from Limehouee, Poplar, asking her to give the advertiser an interview, naming Cannon Btreet station as the place, and suggesting, f r the sake of identification, that she carried a folded newspaper in her hand. The letter was

signed Stuart and Co., granolithic agents. Not caring for the 4 folded paper,’ and someI what dubious about the nature of the place, Mrs Langworthy went to Cannon Street at the appointed time, merely holding conspicuous the blue envelope of the firm. A gentleman soon j fined her, and stated that Messrs Stuart and Co. required a lady to take charge of a stall for a fortnight at the Exhibition of the Building Trades at the Agricultural Hall, Islington, to commence Monday,March 14,ti1l Monday, March 28 ; salary £1 per week. She said she was willing to take charge of it if they thought she would suit, and a few days later Messrs Stuart and Co. wrote statiDg they had selected her, and though others only asked 15s. per week they would give her £1 Is, her duties being to dust exhibits and solicit orders during the hours of 10 a.m.—9.30 p.m. Mrs LaDgworthy winoed a little, with the timidity which is always natural when one is confronting tbe unknown. She knew nothing of granolithic or cement. She had never been in the Agricultural Hall sioce ISB2, when she had been taken there to inspect the models of a yacht. To stand all day at a stall, the contents of which she knew nothing,/ in tie midst of a curious crowd, had its terrors, but beggars must not be choosers, and 2D. 8-week decided the question. On Monday morning, March 14, she set out for her new duties, trying to comfort herrelf by remembering all the heroic sentiments about the dignity of honest labor, etc., but in reality anything but elated. She blushed hotly as she asked the overseer for Messrs Stuart's stall, which was No. 16 Avenue A. It was intensely cold weather. In her little room in Keppel Street ehe had no fire, and in the vast Hall she shivered, as with chatter- | ing tenth she sat in the background, while men warmed themselves by thrusting tbeir hands in their pockets and beating a tattoo with their feet. But as time were on her misgivings ceased ; she received nothing bat courtesy from all around. Among other experiences she was interviewed by a member of the staff of a technical paper, a dapper little geatleman, who was doing tite Exhibition for his journal. The condescending kindness with which this good interviewer brought down his talk to the intellect of the stall attendant was edifying. First he chaffed Mrs Langworthy aud called her 4 lucky girl ’ ; next he said he would write to Messrs Stuart and tell them how much he was gratified with the ‘charming young lady ’ at tbe stall; then he informed her that, as the Exhibition would be open on Saturday aft-ruoons, she would thus lose her 4 Saturday afternoon’s walk.’ After which he mercifully passed on. She did her best to learn a little about Portland cement, granite, and granolithic, but made little progress. When the jury came round they asked her a few question?, bat she was utterly at sea. She had -received practically no instructions, and she floundered desperately in her answers as to whether the granite was from Devon or Aberdeen, and how mush the stairs were per square foot or yard, and how much color was burned on the slabs, or were they shaped in a mould, and a hundred other questions, They Emiled very indulgently and said : 4 Ah, we see you know nothing about it, but we’ll give you a good notice.’ Men stared and hung round sometimes, hut once only did she experience any annoying incident. A neighbour exhibitor, red and irate as an angry turkey, accused her loudly of copying hiß model iu a red chimney piece. It was most offensive to himeelf and clients to see his original mantlepiece now exhibited by her. In vain she tried to see the offence. At lost, 4 forgetting her place,' she burst out impatiently : 4 Well. I’m sure I don’t see anything original in it.’ For a minute the man seemed .struck dumb at such a lack of perception, and then relieved his feelings by denunciation. To this moment Mrs Langwortby cannot understand what it was fill about, Messrs Stuart had placed s red brick mantelpiece in the stand, and this man, it seemed, imagined that she had stolen the design !: Mrs Langwortby’s attendance at the Agricultural Hall was interrupted by the necessity of returning to the Courts on a dila'ory motion made by Messrs Bircham on behalf of their client, Mr Langworthy. CHAPTER LVIII. DELAY, DELAY, STILL MORE DELAY. When Edward Lang worthy fled the CDuntry in April, 1886, with intent to defeat and delay his creditor, Mrs Langwortby filed a petition against him in bankruptcy. The alimony due at the time the petition was filed was £2,000. In addition to this,, there was taxed coats amounting to £463 which were due to Messrs Lumley. Not one penny of this had heen paid. Every recurring month this liability had been increased by £J GO according to the decree of the High Court of Justice, and every month Edward Langworthy had punctually neglected to pay a single faithing. It was of course discreditable for him to be formally adjudicated a bankiu.pt, so he fell back on his old tactics. When Edward Lang; worthy is in a fix his first instinct seems to be to apply to Messrs Bircham, where the faithful Mr Groves and the resourceful Mr Danby are always at hand to assist him in his hour of need. When there seemed a prospect that the order in bankruptcy would be granted, Mr Danby came once more to the fore with the inevitable affidavit, jwhich this time was v

slightly varied from the usual form. This time Mr Danby’s proposal was that a commission should be issued to proceed to Buenos Ayres for the purpose of taking the evidence of Edward Langworthy as to whether he was or was not domiciled in the Argentine Republic. This was not the first time that Messrs Bircham and Co. bad applied to an English Court for the issue of a commission to proceed to Bnenos Ayres. A similar application had been successful in the case of a lawsuit that had been begun against Mr Langworthy by a Woolwich artisan, concerning whose treatment and that of his fellow-workman we may have something more to Bay further on. There was something peculiarly suspicious in the suggestion that a man who had defied the decrees of the Court, who bad last year placed himself voluntarily within the jurisdiction of the Court, and who at the very moment of his application was continuing his usual subscription to one of the West End clubs of which he is a member, should make use of this question of domicile for the purpose of indefinitely postponing the claims of his unfortunate wife. The question of domicile was not a new one with him. It will be remembered that when the application for alimony was first made, and he was ordered to file his defence, he did so under protest, denying the jurisdiction of the Court, inasmuch as he was domiciled abroad. He maintained this protest, according to Mr Dauby’s ewn account, until he thought he was perfectly safe to secure a decree nisi. Then he himself applied for leave to drop the protest as to domicile, and enter an appearance to the citation. He had persisted in denying a jurisdiction of the Court as long as he thought that denial woul injure his wife. The moment , he thought he could make use of the jurisdiction of the Court to legally consecrate the outrage which he had perpetrated, he abandoned it, and entered an appearance. Now, having gained his end and secured the decree nisi, he again raised the question of domicile, for the same purpose as that for which he originally pleaded it. Mr Langworthy therefore appears to be domiciled either in England or the Argentine Republic exactly according to his convenience. When he thinks the Courts will decide in bis favour, be appears before them, as a British subject domiciled within their jurisdiction. The moment s the same Courts order him to discharge the duties of a British subject, and honour the decrees of Her Majesty’s Judges, then, hey presto ! the scene changes instanter, and Edward Langworthy, the British subject, ceases to exist, and there is only an Edward Langworthy domiciled in the Argentine Republic. But what did it matter ? It was a convenient pretext for delay. Delay for Mr Langworthy meant victory. For Mrs Langworthy, ruin. Therefore, acting on instructions received from the Argentine Republic, an application was made by Messrs Bircham to Mr Registrar Hazlitt on March 18, 1887, for a commission to examine the debtor as to domicile. He did uot desire, said Mr Yate Lee, to be made a debtor in his absence. The case was heard in the Bankruptcy Building-", before the Registrar. There weto about a dozen persons present, including Mrs Langworthy, jun., for whom '.tr Woolf appeared to oppose the application for a commission, and that the order in bankruptcy should be granted without delay. Mr Woolf, on behalf of Mrs Langwortby, insisted that the application was purely and solely dilatory. Mrs Lang worthy’s affidavit was put in and read, which declared that her husband was in robust health, and perfectly able to attend if he desired to disprove aiiy allegations contained in the bankruptcy petitionShe further declared on oath : ‘The said Edwin Martin Langworthy is keeping out of the way in order to defeat and delay the proceedings taken against him, and the application made for a commission is not made bona fide.' To this Mr Thomas Wilson Danby, representing the firm of Messrs Bircham, swore : The application for a commission in this matter is made bona fide, and not for the purpose of delay. 4 This,’said Mr Danby, 4 is true, to the best of my information and belief.’ The first point, therefore, to be decided was whether 4 the best of Mr Danby’s information, and belief ’ corresponded to the actual fact. Mr Woolf asked him Has this application been made at the request of the debtor ? What application are you referring to ? Your application to delay the proceedings further in order to send out a commissioner to the Argentine Republic. It has. If, therefore, the application for a commissioner was a bona fide application, and not made 3olely for purposes of delay, Mr Langwqrthy’s letttrs, if produced, would prove whether Mr Danby was correct in denying on oath that the proceedings were not for the purposes of delay. Mr Danby was therefore asked to produce the letters. He demurred. He would produce some, he said. He objected to produce all. Mr Registrar Hazlitt toldhim that he was doing himeelf an injustice by the line he was taking, and uliimately,. not in cross-examination, but in answer to his own counsel, Mr DaDby produced the letters. The fallowing is a note of what passed Mr Yate Lee : What instructions have yoa-

"had from Mr Langworthy with regard to hla examination abroad ! A letter from Landworthy was then pat in and read. It waa dated 10th January. The envelope was not kept; bnt it came from Bella Vista, in the Gran Chaco. Messrs Bircham—l had just time to enclose yon in my letter of the 26 th nit. the writ in bankruptcy served on me by Miss Long, and asked yon to obtain delay, as yon know I am domiciled ont here, and I confess I fail to Bee what jurisdiction the English Court can pretend to have over me. I have neither property nor debts in England, and have had none as far as I know, since October, 1883* Mr Woolf asked that the letter referred to In above should be produced, Mr Yate Lee objected, claiming privilege. Mr Registrar Hazlitt ruled that it must be produced ; and it was read by Mr Danby. October 19th (no year). I have not received the affidavits you say you have sent me in a registered letter, as there is no registered post office near. It has got stuck somewhere. I was served with the enclosed writ by the woman’s agents on the 24ih December, and they must have been put' to some expense to do so. . . . —I am, yours truly E. M. Langworthy. P.S—I presume you can at least delay these proceedings until you can advise me what to do. The only instructions, therefore, which Mr Danby coaid produce were instructions to ■* delay the proceedings’ and again * to obtain -delay.’ CHAPTER LIX. is more remarkable in all these pro* -ceediogs tban the silence of tbe principal actor. Since the day when Mr Langworthy parted from his wife on board tbe Meteor, although we never cease to hear of him, nothing is heard from him. From his solicitors, from bis mother, from his wife, plenty, but from him hardly a word. There are affidavits promised which he is alleged to have signed, bnt they are not filed, and letters alluded to, which are not produced. It was only when the case came into the Bankruptcy Court that Mr Danby reluctantly enough produced a couple of letters from his absent client. In all tbe proceedings that had taken place Mr Langworthy had never personally appeared. Twice at least he had returned to England since the proceedings began, and then only to vanish like a guilty thing, silently and mysterioualy, when bis path crossed that of his wife. Letters, entreaties, writs, judgment, decres of the court, were showered upon him all these years withont producing a single response. There is something impressive to the imagination in this prolonged silence, .stolid and stern. It waa as if yon addressed a quicksand or issued writs against a miasma. At last in the Bankruptcy Court the letters read by Mr Danby break tbe silence. The -first letter ia characteristic, for it contained a downright lie. * I have neither property nor debts in England,’ he writes on the 10th of January, 2887, ’and have had none so Tar as I know since October, 1888.’ Mr Lang* .worthy here states that since October, 1883, he has had neither property nor debts in England. Is that trne or is that not trne ? On this subject the only person who can speak with tbe authority that comes of intimate personal acquaintance with Mr Langworthy’s affairs is his mother. And according to Mrs Langworthy, sen.’a, statement, her son’s statement ia false on bpth points. He had property in England later tban October, 1883, be has dett3 In Eng--land now. What property ba3 he had in England since October, 1883 ? His mother says that on Jannary 1, 1884, her son bad either deposited in English banks or invested in securities no less a sum than £47,000. After January, 1884, he appears to have withdrawn his capital as rapidly as possible from England ; but in October, 1883, the date mentioned by him, be was possessed, according to his mother’s statement, of £47,000. Of this, £23,000 was actually cash on deposit at his bankers'. Why the date October, 18831 Because about that time Mr Langworthy knew that his wife had begun proceedings against bim in tbe law courts. He had been Berved with tbe citation at tbe beginning of 1884. It must, therefore, have been issued at the end of 1883 1 \ -His assertion, therefore, must be made to go back to a date prior to the initiation of proceedings, and be put it back accordingly. The fact that three months later he had £3,000 to ■his credit at Cocks, Biddulph, and Co., £17,000 in tbe New Zealand Bank, and £2,500 in the Standard Bank of Africa, was immaterial. Mr Langwortby further asserts that he bad no debts in England since October, 1883. On This point he is at direct issue with his mother, who in the bankruptcy proceedings names one creditor—to wit, herself—to whom she asserts Mr Langworthy is indebted for nearly £BO,OOO. Far be it from us to decide whether it is Mr Langwortby or Mr Langworthy's mother who is speaking the truth. All that it is necessary to point ont is that mother and son cannot both be accepted as witnesses of trntb. The letters read by Mr Danby contain one or two passages which afford the glimpse of Mr Langworthy’s state of mind. He is evi* denfcly much disgusted and Irritated at * that woman and her agents ’ who pester bim with writs, and he takes a grim satisfaction in dwelling upon their real or imagined defects of ■character or of standing. Mr Langworthy, whether from the risks to which wealthy residents in the Argentine Republic are exposed, or because of tbe fears of a guilty conscience, .always sleeps with a loaded revolver in his room. One morning about two o'clock "he was roused by a noise as of eome one entsring his chamber. Opening hie eyes he raw, or thought he saw, tbe form of a man looming dark against the window. The window had been forced open, and the burglar was stepping into the room when Mr Lang worthy woke. To spring from bed, seize his revolver, and fire ■full at the body of tbe intruder waa the work of a moment. The man instantly disappeared. Rushing to the window Mr Langworthy fired in tbe direction in which he supposed tbe fugitive had fled. Beyond the report of bis own shots, not a sound waa heard. After waiting for a time Mr Langworthy closed the window and went back to bed. In the morning tbe cloeest search was made under the window and in the grounds, but no trace of blood could be discovered. - ‘ And yet,’ said Mr Langworlhy, * his body filled all the ■window. I must have hit him.’ But proof of this there was none. Mr Langwortby was much alarmed at this

incident. He connected the unceremonious intruder in some odd way with the writ. ' I was nearly “ served ” with a more efficacious writ this morning,’ he writes—coupling tbe service of the writ with Ihe entry of the burglar. So fevered was his imagination, so uneasy his conscience, that the form of tho man which he had seen so clearly defined between the sashes of the window was an emusary despatched by his injured wife, to avenge her wrongs ! ‘ They will do it some day,’ he thought. He even wrote to Messrs Bircham as follows ■ ‘.To murder me would be the simplest way to get at my money : the child would inherit and the woman could act as guardian. They will probably sncceed some day.’ ‘ The child would inherit f But one life between little Gladys and the fortune of Edward Martin Laogworthy ! No wonder that the keeper of that life, with all his evil past behind him and haunted by the spectre of his victim, should see in every shadow cast athwart his window in the night watches tbe emissary of vengeance. Even in the craven terror of the Argentine millionaire there is a kind of faith that, alter all, the Gods are just, CHAPTER LX. The Modern Rack.

i But we must return to the Bankruptcy proceedings. As soon as this flaw was clearly proved in couit, the fate of the application for a commission was sealed. Mr Langworthy, on his own letter, was shown to have made a purely dilatory motion, which was a further aggravation of the offence, to punish which the order in bankruptcy was sought. But although the application was practically lost, opportunities still remained for maligning her character and inflicting pain upon Mrs Langworthy. She was in court —the only lady among a dozeD men. Those who have followed her sad story from the beginning will be well aware of the opportunities which her imprudent confidence in Mr Langwortby afforded to the tongue of the malevolent. She had been twice married—in fact, although not in law—but it waa only the second marriage which bad been proved in court. Her married life, however, dated not from the second marriage which took place at Antwerp in January, 1883, but from the first marriage, which was solemnized at Caen in the previous October.

The fact that Mr Langwortby had gone through a double fraud might in tbe opinion of some have led his representative to say as little as possible concerning the oircnmstances which attended that ill-starred union. Such was not the opinion of Mr Thomas Wilson Danby. Immediately before Mrs Laogworthy was called upon to give evidence, he sprung an unsworn affidavit upon the court which he proposed to swear before the Registrar. In this affidavit he declared that the said Miss Long, otherwise Langworthy, cohabited with the said Edward Martin Laugworthy at divers places before the said mairiage. This of courae was perfectly true so far as related to the Antwerp marriage. But it was not true with regard to that at Caen. No explanation, however, was possible then. The suggestion was obvious; indeed Mr Danby himself, when asked pome what sharply by Mr Woolf what he meant by prodneiog such alia git ions against his client —■ allegations which Mr Lumley characterized as infamous—replied coolly. ‘To show the lady’s character.’ Reflect for one moment what this means. Mr Danby waa there, instructed by a man not to be trusted on his oatb, a man who lied without scruple and ruined without remorse the lady who came across his path. But because ■he, all unknowing, believed the solemn declaration of Messrs Bircham’s client—believed that he was incapable of the blasphemy of going through a sham marriage service, making as it were a minister of Almighty God a panderer to his vice, therefore Thomas Wilson Danby, whose only interest in the case was that he was in receipt of a salary from Messrs Birebam and Co., who drew solicitor’s fees from Edward Martin Langworthy, did not hesitate to make this suggestion of immorality. Mr Danby, unfortunately, did not stand alone. Mr Yate Lee, a barrister, instructed by Messrs Bircbam and Co., was not ashamed in consideration of his fees, to develop the same line of attack. Mr Registrar Hazlitt became restive, as any gentleman might, and more tban once interrupted by the remark that he did not aee what Mr Yate Lee's questions had to do with the case. * I cannot make head or tail/ said the Registrar, * of what I have to do with this.' Then Mr Yate Lee asked : * Had you previously lived with him (Langworthy) before the 10th January V To have answered that question would have involved an explanation of the Caen marriage, and raised a eubject into which it would have been impossible to have gone. Mrs Langworthy replied, ‘ I shallnot answer that question.’ Mr Registrar Hazlitt at once interposed : * I do not see that she is required to answer it.’ Nothing daunted, Mr Yate Lee, with his pince-nez dividing his nose almost into a figure of 8, hung his head on one side like a goat when about to butt, and asked, ‘ was your child born a fully-developed child ?’ Mrs Langworthy turned slightly pale, and replied again, * I shall not answer that question.’ Here Mr Registrar Hazlitt could restrain himself no longer, and addressing Mr Yate Lee, with emphasis, he said : * Whether it was born developed or undeveloped, your client has got to maintain it.’ And not till then did Mr Yate Lee, barrister.at law. think that he had sufficiently discharged hia duty to his professional clients. CHAPTER LXI. The Weapons of a Wabriob, not the Da GOER OF THE ASSASSIN. There was a notable passage-at-arms in the House of Commons the other night between Mr Gladstone and Sir Henry James, which bears so directly upon the story of the Langworthy marriage that we venture to quote it from the Times report for the benefit of all whom it may concern. Sir Henry James was replying to Mr Gladstone’s argument that Mr Parnell might fairly shrink from prosecuting assailants in the law-courts on account of the license of cross-examination to which witnesses are subjected when placed iu that modem rack the witness-box. Sir Henry James is reported as follows : Speaking of counsel at the bar, my right bon, friend said that they would exercise

their power for introducing invidious and irrelevant matter. Now, Sir, lam sorry to bear that statement, (Cheers.) Mr Gladstone : (Vllow me to speak, Tbe right hon. gent’eman has conveyed an idea of my intention, which was also conveyed by tbe Attorney General last night, totally contrary to what I meant. I bad in my mind certainly the most splendid piece of forensic eloquence, perhaps of all eloquence known to the history of the century—a wonderful and wellknown passage of Lord Brougham’s, wherein he described the duty of counsel engaged in defending his client iu a criminal prosecution and said, * He has no right to look to the right or to the left or to any consequence or any consideration except the defence of his client.’ It was in regard to the duty of a counsel to his client and to the course he is entitled to take in that defence thut I said what I did say in regard to the introduction of invidious and irrelevant matter. Sir H. James : I car) assure my right hon. friend that I am most auxious not to misrepresent him, but I recollect that speech of Lord Brougham’s. It was delivered in the Middle Temple Hall at a dinner given to Mr Berryer, and my right hou. friend will recollect that a distinguished member of the English bar spraug to his feet and protested against that sayiDg, declaring that that was not the duty of counsel, but that it was their duty to fight with the weapons of a warrior and not with the dagger of an assassin. I am certain my right hor. friend will recollect, even after this interval of twenty years, how the cheers from the assembled members of tho bar rang out in that old hall of the Middle Temple. I have only to say that I hope these words of Sir Alexander Oockburn are now the guiding words of every member of the bar. Readers of the ‘Strange True Story of the Langwortby Marriage ’ are in a fair position to form their own judgment how far * these words of Sir Alexander Cockburn are now the guiding words of every member of tbe bar.’ CHAPTER LXII. The Bankrupt Millionaire. After Mr Yate Lee had discharged his duty of putting Mrs Laugworthy to the question, to the due satisfaction of his professional conscience and of bis professional clients, some other witnesses were examined with a view of proving that Mr Langworthy had not been within the jurisdiction of the court in April, 1886. The upshot of the whole business was the issue of an order in bankruptcy, in which Mr Registrar Hazlitt, after enumerating the documents which had been produced before him and stating what witnesses had been examined, proceeded as follows : ‘ It appearing to the court that tbe following acts of bankruptcy have been committed, namely : firstly, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, tbe said Edward Martin Langworthy, on or about the 9th day of April, 1886) departed out of England ; and secondly, with intent to defeat or delay his creditors, being out of England, remained ont of England on or about the 17th day of June, 1886, a receiving order is hereby made against the said Edward Martin Langworthy, late of Geya House, Maidenhead, but who has no permanent residence or place of business in England ; and the Official Receiver of this court is hereby constituted the receiver of the estate of the said debtor.’ This order is dated the 18th day of Marsh and signed on the 23rd. It may be of interest to mention the dates in the bankruptcy proceedings, which were as follow : Mrs Langworthy’s petition as creditor was dated .. .. May 25, 1886. Filed .. .. June 17, 1883^ Verified by the affidavit of Messrs linmley’s clerk; sworn and filed October 25,1886. Order issued : dated.. .. .. October 25, 1888. Writ served on Mr Langworthy in the Argentine Republic.. .. December24,lßßo. Order in bankruptcy made .. March 18. 1887. Once more, therefore, had Mrs Lang worthy encountered her adversaries in open court and carried her point. Messrs Bircham’s proposal to issue a commission was rejected ; her own demand for an order bad been granted ; and yet she felt far from elated. All satisfaction at the success of tbe proceedings was overcrowded by the rankling memory of the in- ' suits to which she bad been subjected. Granting to the full the gravity of the mistake, tbe immense impruderce of tbe confidence which she had reposed in Mr Langworthy—was it just, was it even human, to say nothing of chivalrous, that the representatives of the very man who had betrayed her trust should fling her confidence in her teeth and expose her once again to public contumely ? Inured as she had been to litigation, her success at law seemed trivial compared with tbe bitterness of the humiliation to which she had been exposed in open court. fhe had with difficulty snatched the time from her duties at the Agricultural Hall to support the pelitiou in bankruptcy. Immediately on leaving the court she returned to ber stall to answer as best she could quest'oos concerning cement, granite, and building material. She bore up for a time, and then feeling very ‘choky ’ she took refuge in the cloakroom—a quiet place apart, where she could indulge undisturbed in the necessity of tears. It is iu those dark hours that the kindly offices of human sympathy are most appreciated, and Mrs Hart, the keeper of the cloak-room, was enabled by the unobtrusive tenderness of services dictated by her womanly instinct to dispel the gloom which hung dark over the unknown stranger.

CHAPTER LXIII. ‘No, hi Lord, I Cannot Difend it.’ One of the Inxuries of wealth is that the rich can have two judicial decisions at least, and sometimes three, upon every point in which they are interested. One of the miseries of poverty is that it is liable to be dragged from court to court until its means are exhausted and its heart sickened with hope deferred. Summary jurisdiction practically does not exist for the rich. Mr Langworthy being rich, there was of course an appeal from the order In bankruptcy. This was the second time that Messrs Biecham had appealed from a decision already given. When Mr Justice Butt had refused to make the decree nisi absolute, Messrs Bircham carried an appeal before three Lords Justices, only to have Mr Justice Butt’s decision uuanimoufly endorsed. Mr Hazlitt had no sooner issued the order iu bankruptcy, and refused to

issue a commission ti inquire as to the que tion of domicile, than Messrs Bircham,. und terred by their previous failure, gave notice i appeal to the Lords Justices. The appeal can on on the Ist of April, before Lords Justici Cotton, Lindley, and Fry. On tbe previoi occasion the appeal had been hejrd by Lord Justices CottoD, Bowen, and Fry. The sma couit was full of barristers. Mr Finlay, Q.C., with whom waa Mr Yat Lee, opened the case for Mr Langwortby. Mi Langworthy waa sitting, with Mr Theodor Lumley, immediately behind her counsel, M Sydney Woolf. The first indication of th< opinion of the court was given when Mr Fie ley was reading her affidavit setting forth he husband’s refusal to pay the alimony orderei by Sir James Hannen. While he waa reudin; this" Lord Justice Fry interrupted with tb remark : ' Is Langworthv your client, Mr Finlay ?’ * Yes, my lord,’ said the barrister, * Surely, Mr Finlay,’ continued Lord Jmtic Fry, * you do not defend Mr Langworthy’a con duct.’ There is a certain blur.t honesty about M Finlay which rendered bim incapable o equivocating or evadirg this direct appeal Had some other counsel been in his place hi would probably have replied, ‘I shall havi something to say about that by-and-by, m 3 lord/ which is the usual trick of fence to wart off an awkward thrust. Mr Finlay resorted to no such feint. Hi said frankly,‘No, my lord, I cannot defenc it.’ As he proceeded to develop his case somi reminiscences of the formei appeal seemed t< to Lord Justice Fry, and he observed, ‘I fancj we had this case before—some time since/ s remark which boded ill for Mr Finlay’s case Eis memory waß evidently hazy, but when Mi Finlay went on to state that there had beer an appeal from Mr Justice Butt’s refusal tc make tbe deciee absolute the three judge! turned round and nodded to each ether, ai much aB to say, ‘ We remember all about i) now.’ They smiled, and then turned rounc and gravely faced the court. Before Mr Finlay had finished, Lord Justice Cotton interznptsd to ask if the mother's evidence had been taken. ‘ No, my lord/ said Mr Finlay. * She was called V * No, my lord.’ * Most remarkable/ murmured Lord Justice Cotton, and again the three judges exchanged observations sotto voce, the only remark audible iu court being, ‘ One who must knotv the case 1’ In the course of this narrative there baa been frequeut occasion to speak of the conduct of barristers in court ; but it is due to Mr Finlay to admit that no barrister could have shown less liking for the distasteful task with which he was entrusted than did the eminent Q.C. who was retained to Bupport Mr Langworthy’s case before tbe Court of Appeal. More than once he repeated th»t be was net there to defend Mr Langworthy’a conduct; and when Mr Danby handed bim the affidavit which had been produced before Mr Registrar Hazlitt, Mr Finlay said frankly, ‘ I cannot read this/ and banded it up to the judges. ‘ Mr Danby banded bim two letters from Mr Langworthy. He hesitated, and seemed as if he would also demur to reading them. ‘ Read them,’ said Mr Woolf. And he read : ‘ A writ was served on me by the—the—the woman’s agents.’ At the word woman there was a slight murmur of surprise. After Mr Finlay came Mr Yate Lee. Mr Woolf having begun to reply, the judges at once informed him that they dismissed the first appeal witb costs. The first appeal was against the refusal to issue a commission. The Becond appeal now came on, which was against the order in bankruptcy. While tho judges were consulting, Mr Groves whispered Mr Finlay, who came forward and asked Mr Woolf if Mrs Langwortby wonld accept £2,000 in lieu of all her claims upon the debtor. Considering that Mrs Lang-, worthy held alimony orders to the extent of £3,900 with coats ; that she had a claim for the maintenance of her child, and that her damages in the breach of promise case were laid at £20,000, the effar was cool, to say the least. Of course Mrs Langworthy said No. She felt, and rightly felt, that the acceptance of any compromise of that kind would entirely complete her ruin. Her position waa very simple. The court had recognized to a certain extent her position, and by refusing to make the decree absolute until Mr Langworthy complied with certain conditions, had shown their semse of the injustice which had been done to her. It was not for her, of all woman in the world, to consent to the abatement by a single tittle of the conditions of the court. She refused promptly, and rightly, and the negitiations went no further.. Tben judgment was pronounced. Lord Justice Cot .on, who sat iu the centre of the three Lorda_ Justices, setroed to hesitate ; but after an animated discussion on the bench with bis neighbors on the right and left, he gave judgment, dismissed the second appeal with costs, like tbe first. In pronouncing judgment he said he had hie doubts at first, but they had been removed by the fact that the mother had neither been called nor had offered to give evidence in a case of which she must have known the facts. Lord Justice Lindley followed and strongly supported the order in bankruptcy. Last of all came Mr Justice Fry, who spoke with not less emphasis as to Mr Langwortby V conduct iu leaving England in order to. defeat the creditor now before the court- Both appeals, therefore, were dismissed with costs, and once more the presentation of Mr Langworthy’s case in court bad resulted in a unanimous judicial condemnation of his conduct. CHAPTER LXIV. The Langwobthy Clan. Before proceeding to describe the various efforts which were from time to time made by Mr Langworthy’a representatives in order to induce Mrs E. M. Langworthy to sacrifice the interests of Mr E. M.'Lang worthy’a child and her own claim under the decrees of the cour.t it may be well to remove one misconception which seems to prevail in many quarters. The Langworthy family has many members. They are most of them well-to-do. They art more or less closely connected by ties of relationship. In particular, Mrs Langworthy, o! Victoria Park, Manchester, is an aunt of Mi Edwin Martin Langworthy, and he expects t< inherit her estate. Mrs Langwortby, o: Victoria Park, Manchester, ia a lady of exoel

3- lent repute, whose praises are in everybody’* a- mouth. Why did not Mrs Langwortby, jun., >f it is said, appeal to her husband’s aunt for ie help in her dire extremity ? is It has been said again hot unnaturally, is Surely Mr LaDgworthy’s relatives would s have saved the family name from tbe shame II which Mr Edwin Martin Langwortby was bringing upon it ? They were wealthy— they e could easily have ascertained the facts for s themselves. They must never have beard of e the case. Why did not Mrs Langwortby, jun., r bring it before them ? > So correspondents write, not knowing the - indifference with which Borne people can conr template the doings of their relatives. Mr® 1 Langworthy the wife had in vain implored the i assistance of Mrs Laugworthy the mother. 3 But the maternal instinct of the latter did not extend to her daughter-in-law. In 1885, when fn sore straits, the latter bethought her of the Lancashire aunt, Mrs Langwortby, of 3 Victoria Park, Macche.-ter, to whose estate - her husband was said to be sole heir. It was possible that she would not be indifferent to r tbe fate of the lady whom Edward Martin f Langwortby had betrayed. Accordingly she . wrote a letter setting out her pitiful case to s Mrs Edward Laogworthy’s lawyers, Messrs s Withington, Petty and Bontflower, asking whether something could not be done, not for I herself, but. fi>r the child. Here is 1 tie •■rily response which she ever ) received from Manchester : 1 Verulan ( hambers, 11, Spring gardens, Manchester, llfch Aug., 1885. 1 Madam,—l Lave seen Mrs Edward Lang--1 worthy on your letter to our firm on the 7th ' inst., and I am instructed by her to say that 1 she must decline to mix herself up in any way whatever with the matter referred to in that letter, and she must be excused having any written or personal communication with 1 you, or with any person on your account. 1 You will see that this letter must terminate 1 our correspondence, X remain, Madam, Yours faithfully, J. A. Petty. Mrs E. M. Langworthy, 38, Queen’a-road, Bayswater. Mrs Langwortby, seeing that hope also disappear, wrote to the solicitor as follows : (Copy of answer.) * Sir, —I thank yox very much for so kindly taking tbe- trouble you have done. It seems to me vtry incredible that any near relative can approve of the base treatment I have received—pronounced by my counsel (tbe present Lord Chancellor) to be the cruellest case he ever heard.’ I am sending your letter to the gentleman who so strongly urged me to call. lam glad, however, that I followed my own dictates in addressing you than subjecting myself to a coarse personal attack. The movement was made in the interests of the only child of the man (E. M. Langworthy) who once told me he was sole heir to Mrs E. M. Langworthy’s entire property by the verbal wish of her late husband. I am, Sir, yours truly, Mildred Langworthy. 38, Queeo’a-road, 12th August, 1885. You will understand this letter means an acknowledgment of yours, not a continuation of correspondence. , No one, of course, can contend, even for parposes of argument, that because a good lady is the aunt of a scamp who expects to become her heir therefore she is bound to extend even a finger to assist the unfortunate victim of that nephew’s selfishness. But Mrs Langworthy, jun., would have been rightly to blame if she had not afforded her husband’s aunt an opportunity—of which she might have been eager to avail'herself, of investigating her case and interposing—as it might have been her pleasure to have interposed—to have remedied so far as was- possible a cruel wrong and a grievous injustice, But it was not the aunt’s pleasure either to assist Mrs Langwortby in the hour of her-need or even to investigate tbe story of her sufferings. So there is no more to be .said. CHAPTER LXV. The Subpcena and the Bunt Party. Nothing is more remarkable in tbe whole of these proceedings than the calm manner in which the Langworthy nobre et fils assume that tbe business of the court should be subordinated to their convenience. Mr Langworthy carries out this to the extreme of ignoring the authority of tbe courts altogether, setting their decrees at defiance and treating them with con--tempt. This he is able to do by keeping him—. self outside the jurisdiction of the court. His mother is not able to do this because she ia* resident and has real property in the country.. But she seems to regard it as a monstrous., hardship that she should ever be summoned to attend the law courts. The public is already, familiar with the repeated affidavits by which , she endeavored to avoid appearing before.. Baron Huddleston. The same characteristic appeared in the. bankruptcy proceedings. Leave was givemto, : privately examine her. The case was set-down. for hearing on the 13fch of April. On the 9th. —which was Easter Eve—she was served with, a subpoena, demanding her appearance at the Registrar’s chambers, Bankruptcy-buildings, togive evidence in the matter. On the appointed morning Mrs Langworthy, jun., with her counsel and solicitor, was in. attendance, bnt Mrs Langworthy, sea ~ did not pnt in an appearance. In her place stood Ur Thomas Wilson Danby. Why waa not Mr*,. Langworthy there ? Mr Danby rose to explain.. Mrs worthy, sen., was giving a hunt party, and it was most inconvenient for her to.be present;so she stopped away ! ‘Of course, she was perfectly willing to come forward,’ said Mr Danby. Whereupon,Mr Registrar Hazlitt remarked drily, ‘That is always said when a witness, does not attend.* - • Bul»’ B»>d Mr Danby/ it 13, Easter week, and most inconvenient for an old lady oS seventy to. come to court in holiday time.*' Then Mr Hazlitt (who Is well advanced - In years himself) remarked blandly that, however tbafc might be, be knew he had to attend the court. As Mrs Langworthy was not there, he would postpone the examination to a more convenient season ; but. she must pay the costs of , that day. Did ever a court accept iu a more kindly : fashion the plea of inconvenience to tbe rich aa ■ an excuse for non-attendance I Hat even this , was not enough for Mr Danby. He protested : against his client beiug saddled with the costs . incurred by her owa neglect to attend. Hia

idea seemed to be that the other side should -with counsel and all the rest be allowed to dance attendance, while his client remained at home enjoying her hunt party without pajing a penny of the costs. This view of the situation was too much for Mr Registrar Hazlitt. He said :‘I not think so. I think it is just that it should be so. The expenses have been incurred, and gentlemen are here in various capacities to attend the appointment. And now, because somebody told her that she was not likely to be required until the 18th, and she has consequently got a party, therefore the sitting mast be postponed. Under these circumstances she must pay all costs.’ The examination was therefore postponed for several days, and Mis Langworthy, jun., left the court wondering what would have bappeced if she had neglected to obey a subpoena on the ground that she was enjoying herself elsewhere. But then of course, there is all the difference in the world between a poor plaintiff who is depending upon charity for daily bread and the other party who is rich enough to give hunt parties. CHAPTER LXVI. S PEN LOW AND JOSKINS. No arrangement conld be more convenient than the familiar and famous arrangement between Mr Speulow and Mr Jorkins, which is described in the pages of ‘David Coppertield. In that eminent firm the partner who was present was always willing to do anything ; the difficulty always lay with the invisible partner. Mr. Spenlow, when receiving an applicant, was always in mortal dread of Mr Jorkins. Of course, nothing would give him greater pleasure—but the terrible Mr Jorkins in the background : no one could say what he would do. It was just the same when Mr Jorkins was to the fore and Mr Spenlow was the invisible partner. This arrangement, convenient though it was for the members of the firm, had its disadvantages for the general public. The advantages of the system seem to have been present to the minds of Mrs Langworthy', sen., of Maidenhead, and Mr Edward Martin Langworthy, of Bella Vista, and the Langworthys, mere et fils, seemed to have struck np some such partnership arrangement. Ab in this case Spenlow and Jorkins were separated by some -6,000 miles, the inconveniences of troublesome customers were cor-i respondingly -increased. Mrs Laijgworthy, jun„ had now got an order in bankruptcy against her husband, but no sooner was the order granted than it was discovered that 'Mr Edward Martin Langworthy had no . property at all in thi3 country. On the contrary, instead of being, as was supposed, a -.man of great wealth, he was absolutely head over heels ia debt. There were no assets —only claims ; and the chief -creditor..wa3 none other than the senier member in the firm—to wit, Mrs Langworthy, of Geys House,-Maidenhead 1 The way in which responsibility passes from mother and son was illustrated ia the success with which Mrs Langworthy feu., defeated Mrs-.Langworthy, jun.’s raid upon the goods and chattels addressed to her son at Southampton. A much more remarkable illustration is afforded by the lawsuit now in progress between an artisan at Woolwich of the name of Wimble and Mrs Langworthy. :This is an action brought by Wimble for • breach of. contract. According to Wimble’s story he, with several ether workmen, was engaged for a year hy Mrs Langwortby, sen., to go out to work for Mr Langworthy in the Argentine Republic. When he got out, Mr •,Langworthy refused to pay him, and sent him and a mate about their business. ‘I told -him,’ said Wimble, ‘ I had come out to him on -« twelve months’ agreement with bis mother. He said,he knew nothing abont it* Wimble had to work his way back as best be could. His mate,. not being a seaman, conld not get .a passage, and is still believed to be in the Argentine Rfpublic, while his wife is said to be at present in one of the London houses. Wimble, returning home, instituted proceedings against Mrs .Langworthy. Her defence was that she >was only acting as . her son’s agent, and that he was the principal, against whom proceedings, if anj., should be taken. As the case is at present hung np until the report of a-commission issued to take evidence as-to the complainant’s conduct m South America, who,knows nothing about his mother’s contracts, and MraLangwortby, sen., who is oDly the agent oi her son, the un- ■ fortunate workman -is in a somewhat evil •case. , _ Yet at the same time that Mrs Eangworthy, Ben., was meeting the claim of Wimble by denying that she was anything more -than her son’s .agent, and therefore not liable to be sued for his breach of contract, if any janch breach was. committed, she was meeticg ber daughter-in-Eatf’s claim to the goods seized at Southampton by asserting that the goods were purchased by her on her own behalf and for her own uee on her own estate In South America i (This was in April, 1886.) What makes .this more peculiar is that it was not till September in that year that she sent out a power of attorney to transfer her son s .estate to hee own name. So at least she swore before Baron Huddleston in February last. (To be concluded).