A STRANGE TRUE STORY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLX, Issue 8166, 18 August 1887, Page 3

A STRANGE TRUE STORY.

THE LANG WORTHY MARRIAGE. (From the Pall Mall Budget.) (Continued.) To this suggestion, surely not an unreasonable one under the circumstances, Messrs Bircham and Co. repbed as follows . 46 Parliament-street. LANGYVORTHY v. LANGWORTHY. Dear Sits. —In reply to y our note of yesterday we can only repeat what we said m conversation when we last saw you, Mr Groves affidavit does not state (as you say it does) that there was no ceremony of marriage gone through between the parties, but that the Respondent had denied that there was any such ceremony. That is no more than the fact. Dr Potts’ evidence no doubt goes the other way; but it is as yet unconfirmed, and there may, for aught you know, be quite another version of what passed. Our client is unfortunately on the other side of the globe, at a very uncomeatable apot, and we are therefore at some disadvantage in not being able to communicate with him as freely as you can with your client. The main question is, has there or has there not been a valid marriage, and even taking Mr Potts’ evidence as it stands, we can scarcely suppose that even you would seriously contend that there has been such a marriage, or that a Presbyterian, minister of the United States has, under any circumstances, power to cele* brate marriages between British subjects in a foreign State. It will be for the Court to decide the point when it has all the evidence before it. Meanwhile, we do not feel that we are called upon to say more in reply to your inquiry than that it is still our intention to dispute the validity of the alleged ceremony.— Yours faithfully, Bircham and Co. Messrs Lumley and Lumley, 37 Conduit* street. Regent-street. And in 1887, after this story was published, Messrs Bircham and Go still defend and justify the course which they then took ! CHAPTER XXII. INTO COURT AT LAST. The Orders of Chivalry have passed away. The Spirit of Chivalry is eternal. Of the old Templars there but remains the name which nlin"s to the site of their ancient habitation, where bewigged barristers of the Temple get up their briefs before entering the lists of the legal tourney on the other side of Temple Bar. In the ‘ Idylls of the King,’ the master poet of our later day has familiarised us with that ‘ long vaulted hall ’ in Camelot, that ‘ city of shadowy palaces,’ where Arthur s-.it as King •to help the wrong’d thro’ all the realm.’ For the rescue of Lady Lyonors besieged in Castle Perilous the fair Lynette may now plead in vain. No Lancelot, nor even Gareth the kitchen knave, will crave the quest to succour her. Distressed ladies fail not; but where are the knights ? In one sense it may be said that they are in the Courts of Justice. Theermined judge, representative of the impartial goddess, sits to right the wronged, and to. crush the •wrongers of the realm. The barrister is the modern substitute for the ‘ very gentle perfect knight ’ of Chaucer’s time ; and the law, sacred in its incarnation of -horsehair, silk, and bombazine, is supposed to have left no work for the errant brotherhood. . ■ Let us, then, see how. it will fare with the injured heroine of. this pvertrue tale, when for the first time after long delays she was able to bring her case before our Courts, . It was now June, laßs, two full years since Mr Langwdrthy had shipped his wife home to Europe like a rejected parcel of damaged goods. All this time she had been suing, and vainly suing, for redress. In these two years her husband had returned to England and departed again for America, not troubling himself about the. woman whom he had abandoned,, more than was necessary to emit a lie, which, being duly served up in affidavit, had_ barred her from all maintenance pendente lite, and had exposed her to the odium which attaches to a woman branded as an untruthful adventuress and a cast-off mistress by the'man to whom she claimed to be married. Mr Langworthy had been living in the luxury of a South American nabob. His wife had been left to struggle without means in the great world of London. During these two years she . ought to have succumbed. But she was of stouter heart than the cats whom he used to drown in the well of the,Hotel Braganza, and she still kept her head above water with provoking persistency. It was a desperate struggle, but she kept it up with undaunted resolution. For two long years the battle for life, and for her fair fame, which w-s worth more than life, had been waged against overwhelming odds. The case was down at last on the list, and on June 20,1885, it was called into Omrt, . Down to that hour Mr Langworthy, through his solicitors, had denied that there had been any marriage, ceremony of marriage, or pretended form or ceremony of marriage. It was necessary' to do so in order to bar out the claim for alimony, and it was safe to do so as long as the case could be kept out of Court. Now at last the truth was about to come to light, and Mrs Langworthy’s heait rejoiced in the hope that her long tribulation was drawing to an end, and she would now be righted, for the High Court of Justice would vindicate her position in the eyes ot the world.

CHAPTER XXIII. \ THE BLOW DRAG-CHAIN Off THE LAW'S DELAY. Mrs Langworthy had begun proceedings in midsummer of 1883. Barrier after barrier had been raised against her to prevent her bringing her case before the world. Great is silence. Every effort had been made—and successfully made—to keep the indignant cry of the outraged wife from being heard by the great public. Alas ! who can say how many similar voices, tremulous with anguish, there may not be even at this hour vainly striving to make themselves heard—and striving in vain ! Recall for a moment the difficulties placed in Mrs Langworthy’s way whhh had _to bo overcome before she could get into the witnessbox. In telling the story ot her battle one important chapter was inadvertently omitted. How is it, people say, that although the resolve to applv to the Courts was tiken in June, 1883, the citation was not issued till December? The cause of this delay is easily explained.' When Mr Langworthy sent his wife adrift at Buenos Ayres, he wrote her a letter, already printed, which begins: ‘ln -accordance with your wish to return to Europe and live near Frankfort, I have arranged that the sum o’ L2O per month shall be placed at your credit, Ate. As she had never expresse I any wish to return to Europe, beyond scribbling a wild and frenzied appeal to be sent home to England rather than be left to die—as the doctor as.suredhershe would ■ at Buenos Ayres, while her husband went, shooting at the isle of St Thomas, it was difficult to understand why he had prefaced this letter of imperious and inso- ' lent brutality by’ what seemed a wanton and altogether unnecessary lie. When, however, Mrs Langworthy made her first application to Mr Registrar Middleton, the significance and ■utility of this seemingly wanton falsehood were apparent. Said the Registrar, on perusing the letter; which was produced when the application was made for a citation and _ alimony pendente lite: ‘. But from,this letter it appears that Mrs Langworthy has left her husband at her own wish. We cannot'call upon Mr Langworthy to restore Mrs Langworthy to her'conjugal rights until it is clear that he has refused them. Th’ letter seems to show that Mrs Langworthy has left at heriown request.’ The application, therefore, failed for the time, and nothing could be done until, the demand had been served upon Mr Langworthy to. return to cohabitation. Thus the first trick, had been scored by Langworthy, and: his wife was compelled to wait before she could even begin proceedings for her rights until she had beard from South America.

Her lawyers wrote to Mr Laugworthy. She wrote to Mr Langworthy. But Mr Langworthy lay low, and replied never a word. He wrote, indeed, to her a letter in July or August, immediately~he received the demand for the restitution of conjugal rights,' but instead of posting it, in which case she would have received it, and have been able to produce it to the Registrar as proof that he had received her letter, he entrusted it to his cousin. ' His -cousin confided it to Messrs j Bircham, and Messrs Bircham placed it on one side in their strong box; nor was its existence known to Mrs Langworthy until November in the following year. This absolute silence, this stolid indifference to the plaints of his wife, was his second line of defence. It was nearly six months before it wtu broken down, and the- absence of any reply was held by the Registrar to be sufficient proof that he had received the letters, and had refused to restore Mrs Langworthy to her conjugal rights. ; The third obstacle was the false, assertion made by Messrs Bircham's representative that Mr Langworthy in March, 1884, was in such a remote region that a delay of several months must be accorded before he could file his reply, This would have been successful but for the dream which enabled bis wife : to prove that at the time he was said to be ia South America

he was really within a few yards of Somerset House. On that point Mrs Langworthy came off victorious, but the foe was not routed, he only fell back behind another line of defence. ■ -This was to dispute the jurisdiction of the Court, by denying that Mr Langworthy was domiciled in England. This was an ingenious device. The protest was entered April?, and the protest was not abandoned until May 26, Mr Langworthy and his advisers then admitted the domicile, in order to secure a legal decision in favor of the nullity of his marriage. The plea had secured a couple of months’ delay, then it was dropped, only to be revived again this spring, when it was found a convenient pretext to oppose the issue of an adjudication in bankruptcy. The fifth and most fatal ef all obstacles was the lie that no ‘ form or ceremony of marriage, or pretended form or ceremony of marriage, was at any time performed or gone through between him and the petitioner.’ This led to the refusal of alimony, by which she was flung out on the world, branded by her husband as a perjured adventuress. After that a whole year more was wasted m legal fencing. Even after the Rev Dr Potts’ evidence had proved conclusively that a ceremony of marriage had been gone through, Messrs Bircham and Co. discredited his evidence as ‘quite unconfirmed,’ and hinted that ‘ there may, for aught you_ know, be quite another version of the affair. That was in March, 1885. It was not till June that they were actually able to get into Court,

CHAPTER XXIV. ‘ MX LORD, WE ADMIT EVERYTHING.’

Mrs Langworthy breathed a great sigh of relief as she entered the Court. At last she was to be allowed to enter the witness-box and testify to the way she had been treated. The whole story of her wrong was to be set forth in open Court on her oath, and through the press to the world. Publicity is often the last hope forßhe oppressed. And not without cause; for although ‘ The knight is dust, ‘ And his good sword rust,’

in Englishmen the fire of chivalry is not extinct. Only let them know of foul wrong or grievous injustice wrought to lady, damosel, or gentlewoman, timely and efficient help will still be forthcoming. The difficulty is in letting them know. In their ears sound many voices, multitudinous as the waves on the shore; everyone is pre-occupied, our own life’s struggle absorbs our attention. Who can make men halt to hear a tale- of wrong, but one among so many? There is but one means—by the wide publicity of the law Courts, whose proceedings are reported by the newspapers; for the press is the speaking-trumpet of the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed. The press is the crier by whose aid the wail of the outcast can penetrate the palaces of kings, and the plaint of the widow and the orphan made itself heard by those who have power to right wrong and do justice. And Mrs Langworthy, after twe years of cruel suspense, hoped once more, as she thought that she would be heard, and that the story of her wrong would not fail to bring her prompt redress. When the case was called, Sir James Hannen was on the Bench. Messrs Lumley, with a spirit of chivalrous devotion to the cause of their client, had retained the ablest counsel at the bar. Mr Gladstone’s Administration had just gone out. Lord Salisbury was forming his Cabinet, and it was yet uncertain whether the Lord Chancellorship would go to Lord Esher or to Sir Hardinge Giffsqrd. The latter had been retained for Mrs Lang worthy. He had accepted the brief, the last, it is said, he ever held, and he was much interested, in what he described as the cruellest case he ever knew. Before the case was called, Lord Salisbury's choice was made, and Sir Hardinge Giffard, leaving the bar for the woolsack, was compelled to leave his briefs to those who remained behind. Thus it came to pass that at the last moment Mrs Langworthy’s case was handed over to Mr Willis, Q.C., wKo had barely time to read his brief before he came into Court, and with him were Mr Bayford and Mr Rose Lines. On the other side were Mr, now Sir Charles [Russell, QIC., Mr Inderwick, Q.C., and Mr Middleton. Two Q.C.’s and a junior, instructed by Messrs Bircham, stood arrayed to do their legal best to free_ Mr Langworthy from the obligations into which he. had of his own will deliberately entered, and to destroy the last hope of the unfortunate lady who was appealing to law to give her justice. : Mrs Langworthy’s heart sank within her as she saw Sir Charles Russell rise in Court on behalf of her husband. The great advocate was a near neighbor of hers. They both came from the north-eastern corner of Ireland which has contributed so many distinguished citizens to the service of the Queen. It seemed hard to her—so irrational in a woman’s heart—that he, her neighbor and fellow-countryman, should enter the lists against her. But what was her amazement when the first words which fell from his lips were :

My lord, we admit everything 1 .We only challenge the legality of the marriage. Mr Bayford ; Do you admit the ceremony of marriage ? Sir Charles Russell; We admit everything. Mr Bayford ; Do you admit that this is the lady with whom the ceremony was contracted ? Sir Charles Russell: Yes. We only dispute the validity of the marriage, and apply for a delay to bring over witnesses from Belgium. CHAPTER XXV. ■ ' GAGGED IN COURT. To appreciate the full significance of the startling admission, ‘ We admit everything,’ with which Sir Charles, then Mr Charles, Russell opened the case for jactitation of marriage, which was Mr Langworthy’s reply to his wife’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights, it is necessary; to state what had preceded it. For two years Mrs Langworthy had claimed to be married to Mr Langworthy. Her c'aim to alimony had been rejected solely on the strength of an affidavit sworn by one of his solicitors repeating his distinct and emphatic assurance that there had been no form or ceremony of marriage or pretended form or ceremony of marriage. Mr" Langworthy had advertised in the South American papers that he had nothing to do with the perron describing herself as Mrs E. M. Langworthy and representing herself to be his wife. This attitude of denying the very existence of any ceremony of marriage had been persisted in down to the last. Even after Dr Potts had given his evidence there was no weakening the defence. When Mrs Langworthy and her sister Edith were brought.over from Belfast to London, it was understood at all the consultations that the other side intended to dispute the fact that there ever had been any ceremony at all.' Sir Hardings Giffard, who had been retained for Mrs Langworthy, is said to have remarked that ‘it was the cruellest case he had ever heard of,’ and at his suggestion it was decided to rest the whole: case on i the marriage at A ntwerp. , The marriage at ■ Caen had been without witnesses,, whereas that at Antwerp was duly attested. Everything was in readiness to prove .the Antwerp marriage. Mrs Lang worthy was to be the first witness. The night before the case came on Mrs Langworthy could not rest. She was_ feverish and fretful, and tried in vain all ; appliances to woO if only an hour’s sleep. How the long hours dragged ; as she tossed sleeplessly the long night through,,-while imagination busied itself with all the conceivable questions which might be expected in cross-examination! But there was with it all a- feeling of exultation. Her hour was near at hand- She would at least dispose of the persistent lie that there had been rio marriage- She might lose her suit, but she would clear her character, and; if she failed in all else she could at least let people know how cruelly aha had been treated. = At 10 o’clock there was a consultation. The case was heard in No. 2 Probate Division in the new Law Courts. Mr Willis, Q.C., Mr Bayford, and Mr Rose Innes were there. A consultation is one of the most painful ordeals of 'litigants. Even the witness-box during cross-examination is often less discouraging than a consultation, especially if your counsel's temper is hofc and his sympathy cool. On this score fortunately Mrs Langworthy had nothing to complain of, and she remembers to this day with gratitude the encouraging words of one of her counsel as sho seemed distressed, '* Don’t mind, Mrs Langwcrthy ; we believe in you. The consultation was. interrupted by the sudden opening of the door and the cry, Court’s sitting ! Mr Willis went first, remarking, we shall have to fight to establish the fact of the marriage, followed by. Mr Bayford. Mr Rose Innes and Mrs Langworthy brought up the rear. When they came into Court they found Sir Charles Russell already on his feet addressing Sir - James Hannen. Mrs Langworthy had never seen him before. Who is he? she asked in a harried whisper of Mr Robert Lumley. Charles Russell, he replied. Ho had hardly mentioned. his -name when she heard make the remarkable declaration : My lord, we admit everything ! _ ■ There was a momentary confusion. Mrs Langworthy's mind was so full of proof of the marriage which had been denied, she could not realise what the admission meant. She saw her counsel exchange glances; then Mr Bayford sprang up. Do you admit the marriage ?—Yes. . Do you admit the petitioner was the lady

who went through the marriage at Antwerp ? —Yes, yes, said Mr Russell, somewhat testily, waving his hand to motion Mr Bayford to his seat; we dispute the legality of the marriage, and asked for an adjournment until the Belgian witnesses could arrive, who had been telegraphed for. The request was granted, and the case was adjourned till Monday. At fir-t she could hardly believe her ears. After two years’ persistence in affidavits denying that there had been any ceremony or pretended ceremony of marriage, no sooner does ths case come into open day than *we admit everything,' What a commentary solemn, denials of repeated affidavits ! \Vnat a cynical avowal of the falsehood by which injustice had received a legal sanction ! All these foul aspersions upon her character -abandoned without a single word of apology or of defence. But they had effected partially at least their purpose; they had barred her claim for alimony, and if she had not been fortunate beyond most suitors in finding such staunch supporters in the Messrs Lumley, the affidavits would have utterly destroyed all chance of her ever bringing the case into Court. A moment’s reflection enabled her to see why this sudden admission had been made. It averted exposure. Everything being admitted save the validity of the marriage, all opportunity was taken away from her of telling in the witness-box the shameful story of the treatment to which she had been subjected. Mr Langworthy’s lie in short had been persisted in as long as it could only injure her ; it was given up the moment it afforded her a chance of exposing him. ‘We admit everything. We only dispute the legality of the ceremony.' Down to that moment the fact that there had been any ceremony or pretending ceremony had been denied. Only when Mrs Langworthy had at last the opportunity of vindicating her character, of flinging back the aspersion of perjury and immorality, and of describing all the fraud and brutality with which she had been treated, her mouth was closed. Evidence could not be led to prove that which was Witnesses could only be called as to the validity of the marriage—that is to say, as to a technical legal point, and that only. Mrs Langworthy was in effect gagged in court. CHAPTER XXVI. MR DANBY TELLS US WHY. But the admission was made, it will be said, and was not that enough ? Enough for the judge, no doubt, but not enough for the public. Newspapers seldom report purely legal evidence, and in this case the proceedings passed almost unnoticed. That was not all. By keeping Mrs Langworthy out of the witness-box an opportunity was afforded to Mr Langworthy and Mr Langworthy’s friends of which they were not slow to avail themselves. It was not until last week, in the very office of the paper in which this sad and tragic tale is told, that it was clearly made apparent what use could be made of the success which had attended this gagging episode. Thomas Wilson Danby, solicitor, representative of the firm of Messrs Bircham and Co., came to the office of the Pall Mall Gazette, and had conversation in the presence of two witnesses with the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette. The interview was not of the editor s seeking. Neither was Mr Thomas Wilson Danby acting under the instructions of Edward Martin Langworthy. In the course of the conversation which ensued, in which Mr Danby stated that he was from Messrs Bircham’s, he referred to Mrs Lang worthy as Miss Long, and was requested somewhat Imperatively to describe Mrs Langworthy junior by her right name. It was all very well, he was told, to call her Miss Long at the first, when it was asserted that there had been no form of ceremony, or pretended form or ceremony of marriage ; but when that had been proved to have been a lie, he might at least describe her properly. And this is what Mr Danby replied : ‘ Is it not strange that the lady has never been in the witness-box to say that she went through a eremony at all ?’ As a mere matter of fact, this, although it might have been true down to the beginning of this year, was not true at the time Mr Danby spoke. On March 18, in the Bankruptcy Court, before Mr Registrar Hazlitt, Mrs Langworthy was asked, in cross-examination by Mr Yate Lee, instructed by Messrs Bircham and Co. :

‘ Your marriage with Mr Langworthy took place on the 10th of January ?’ Mrs Langworthy : ‘ That is so.’ (To be continued.)