A STRANGE TRUE STORY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLX, Issue 8167, 19 August 1887, Page 3

A STRANGE TRUE STORY.

THE LANGWORTHY MARRIAGE. (From the Pall Moll Jlvdgti.) (Continued.) But Mr Danby bad possibly got into a habit - of using this sneer, and it may even be said for Mr Danby that at the Bankruptcy Court the ■ witness sits at a table, and does not go into the wifcness-box. It: is a great thing to stick hte* rally to the truth. But reflect for, one moment what was the meaning of such an insinuation under the Circumstances. Mr Danby had come to the office of a news--paper which was publishing the narrative of Mrs Langworthy’s wrongs. He was talking - to tfie responsible Editor, who was bound, if ;he entertained the slightest doubt as to the - fact that the marriage had actully taken place, to suspend the publication of ‘ The Strange, True Story,’ leaving Mrs Langworthy to struggle for life as best she could without his assistance. And to this man so placed and weighed - down with such responsibilities to the public . and to the employers. Mr Thomas Wilson Danby,- representing the _ firm of Messrs 'Bircham and Co., whose high reputation and /unsullied record have cast a glamour _ of apparent decency even over the unmitigated rascality of tbeir diene, insinuate the doubt whether after all her story was an impudent lie. ‘ls it not strange, 9 was the formula, 1 that - she has never been in the box to say that she went through a ceremony at all?’ 'lo anyone who had no knowledge of ■ the case, this innuendo —about as perfect a of^the --suggestio falsi as could be imagined might -have put a stop to any further attempt to bring Mrs Langworthy’s case before the public. ■lf the lady had not even dared all these years to swear in the witness-box that she had gone through a marriage ceremony at all, who could believe that there was any truth in her story ? If it were true, then, indeed, her silence was - strange, so passing strange as to be practically -■equivalent to an admission that the whole story was false. The Editor replied, with soma natural warmth:— ‘And the reason why? Because you ad•smitted the marriage the moment the case came - into Court, and ’ And Mr Danby interrupted with five words which clinched the worst interpretation of his previous suggestion. He said, For the purposes of argument! This is what he, Thomas Wilson Danby, . representing the firm of Messrs Bircham and Co., actually said to the Editor of the journal -in which this story appears. For the purpose of argument! was the reply, How dare you say that, after all the lies that have been told all these years ? It was in - order to prevent her going into the witness box, to avert the exposure, that you admitted • everything,’ and now you come to me and ask. Is it a marriage at all ? Eor purposes of argument, indeed! and then, calming him- . self by an effort, the Editor said : I beg your pardon : I do not mean for a moment to say that you lied. All that Messrs Bircham didwas to repeat on affidavit the lies that their .-client told them. But what a vista of possible injury inflicted .upon Mrs Langworthy for all these years, by ■lnnuendoes, and suggestion, these words, for the purposes of argument, revealed ! Is it possible that the implied ren’iation of Sir Charles Bussell’s admission never been heard before ? It would not have been possible to have dealt these blows but for the dexterous way in which her mouth had been closed when her. case came into • Court, CHAPTER XXVII. STUNG TO THE QUICK. Mrs Langworthy could not be called to prove that which was not disputed. All that - could be done was for Mr Willis, her counsel, to read over the report of the examination on -commission of Dr Potts as to the marriage at Antwerp. Sir James Hannen remarked that it was a very beautiful and impressive service, and contained all the essentials of the contract of matrimony that were required by the law of England. What was wanted now was the evidence as to the law of Belgium on the subject. On Monday, Sir Charles Russell opened the case for the defence. Everyone knows the ■ singularly impressive eloquence of the great barrister. He states a case more as a judge than an advocate, and presses his points with ■ a force that is all the more vigorous from being iheld well in restraint. A great forensic gladiator, conscious of his strength, and happily of the existence of any higher law ■ than that of doing the best for his client, he rose with alacrity to demolish Mrs Langworthy’s claim. So fir as the legal aspect of the case went, it was like using a Nasmyth hammer to break a porcelain vase.' The lex loci governs the validity of of marriages, and Mr Willis did not even venture to call a witiness to prove that the marriage performed by Dr Potts was binding from the point of view of Belgian law. The other side were well provided with experts. They had brought over 'three eminent advocates from Belgium. The -chief expert who was first called was M. Humbeech, ex-Minister of Public Instruction in Belgium, an advocate of thirty-three years’ standing. With him came two others. They .stated that by the Belgian law marriage was a civil contract which could only be entered Into before the Mayor, or other civil officer, -and four witnesses. There must also be two previous publications of the intention to marry, eight days intervening between the two. Anyone could, if they pleased, superadd a religious ■ceremony to the ciril contract; bat the latter .alone was legal. No clergyman had power to celebrate a legal marriage, and Dr Potts had rendered himself liable to a penalty by what he had done. All the witnesses agreed in this. Then followed a little scene, to understand which it is necessary to mal e the following rough sketch of the Court, which shows how they sat Sir James Hannen, Judge,

Mrs Langworthy, who was closely veiled, and wore a black grenadine dress and a small black French bonnet, sat between Mr Robert Lmnley and Mr Colyer. When Sir Charles Russell, was speaking, the hand which played with his watchchain almost rustled the lace on Mrs Langworthy’s bonnet, so close were they together. Mr Inderwick, who sat on the other side of his leader, for some time stared in a way that made Mrs Langworthy glad of her double veil. The day has not yet come when gentlemen with tvigs deem themselves bound to treat a lady in Court with the same courtesy that they treat ladies in a drawing-room—the more’s the pity, for under the present system the most innocent and injured of petitioners is spared as little as the most brazen of her sex. The examination of the Belgian witnesses was conducted by Sir Charles Russell, through the medium of an. interpreter. Mr Wills more than' once objected to Sir Charles Bnsoell’s method of putting leading questions ; but he objected in vain, and at last sat down, somewhat angrily, exclaiming : I’ve never been treated like this before, Russell. It was all he could do. The law was clear. The judges said that after bearing the evidence of the Belgian advocates, there could be no doubt that, although there bad been a marriage in fact, the marriage was invalid by the law of Belgium. Mr Willis said be did not dispute this, but that before the decree was pronounced he must raise the question of alimony and the provision for the child. Sir James Hannen said: Do I understand there was an application for alimony ? Mr Middleton ; Yes, my lord. Sir James Hannen : Then it should not have been refused. I will defer judgment until that question is settled. ' Then Sir Charles Russell rose, and leaning over until his watch seal almost touched Mrs Langworthy’s head, said in his blandest tones (Mr Inderwick staring the while at Mrs Langworthy, who had raised her veil the better to hear the judge’s decision) — My lord, there is something I wish to bring before your lordship about the way in ■which the parties met and the birth of the alleged child! Mrs Langworthy started as if she had been stung, with difficulty restraining an impulse to give the great Q.O. aback-handed blow across the face, so near was he to her and so cruel was the insult. Turning to Mr Colyer, she asked: Birth of the alleged child! What does he mean ?

Don’t know, said Mr Colyer, unless, he added, laughing, he means that it should have been born a man. She turned to Mr Robert Lumley, What does he mean ?’

‘Nothing,’said he, ‘it is all bounce ; don’t mind him.’ But the woman who had lost her ca?e felt the sting of that last blow more even thau the proof of illegality of her marriage. As she drew down her veil to hide her tears, she h»ard Sir James Hannen say rather sharply, ‘ Then why don’t you bring everything before me?’ The Court immediately adjourned. Mrs Langworthy was aa one distraught. What next? They had denied the ceremony, and then admitted in order the better to destroy its validity. Were they now to deny the existence of her child, or, worse still warfare against her had been waged without mercy, without scruple—were they going to impute that it was not the child of the man who had promised so solemnly before Almighty God to love and to cherish her aa his w ;[f e A|util death did them part? Who could say? With such an opponent as Mr Langworthy anything was possible. And she walked like a wi.d and speechless thing for hours through the streets of London, unable to open her lips. Alleged child ‘ alleged child ’—the words were burning like molten lead in her dazed brain. ‘Alleged child’—and far away in /Northern Ireland ‘ the alleged child,’ a little darling girl, with curling golden hair, was playing, all unconscious of the agony and shame and dark despair which were preying on the heart of her mother, as she wandered silent in the streets ot London town. CHAPTER XXVIII. LINGWORTHY CLAIMS THE ‘ ALLEGED CHILD.’ Great are the mysteries ot law. Nothing wou’d appear to be more obvious to the lay mind 0 than that a marriage which was invalid was a mairlage which legally did not exLt. For a marriage, it might be supposed, is cither a legal contract or is nothing at all. V hen Mr Langworthy, therefore, had estab iahed the iuvalidity of the ceremony perfoimed by the Kev. Dr Potts, it might be supposed that he there and then becam i a free man, and no longer need concern himself about the poor lady whom he had tricked by the bogus marriage. Fortunately, however, the law for once proved itoelf capable—in the bands of a judge who loved justice—ot affording some protection to the woman who, altiough twice married, was nevertheless no lega' wife. TLe case was adjourned till July 7, 188 F , when, accompanied by her sister, she took her teat once more before S r . a-n« H»i nen, t~e grave kindliness of whose faoe had from the Hr t filled her with confidence that he would do what He could to do her justice. When she enteiel there was some shipping case being heard, for tie aims Cour% by a curious arrangement, deals with causes matr 1 - monia! and maritime. After a time her case was sailed. Mr Bayford, who appeared for Mis Laugworlhy,pointed out that MrsLangworfchy, had incurred heavy costs on two issues, bo h of whirfc, after being raised by her husband, had bsen withdrawn. The firs; was tfie appearance under protest, and the second as to the marriage in fact. The question o? alimony remained, and also the fu ther ques'ibn of the custody of the child. Sir Charles Russell was uot there. She waited with tome trepidation for the production of those other matters relating to the * alleged child ’ which had been promised to b > brought before the Court at the last sitting. Her alarm was baseless. As Mr Robert Lumley told her, it was only ‘ bounce,’ Nothing was said about * how these parties met;* no doubt was raised aa to the reality or the paternity of the ‘ a leged child,’ nay, so far from denying its existence or dia puting that it was the daughter of Mr Langwortby, Mr Inderwick expresdy insisted upon Mr Langwortby’a claim for the custody of bis daughter, and secured the insertion of words to that effect in the decree nisi. After Sir James Hanneu had heard ell that the counsel bad to say, he delivered judgment as follows : The wife is plainly entitled to these costs. All the reasons which apply to the ordinary matrimonial suit apply to a case of this kind, where a man has gone through a marriage in fact with a woman. If he afterwards seeks to repudiate her on the giound that that was not a va’id marriage, she ought not to be in any worse position than any ordinary wife who was litigating with her husband, and she ought to have her costs. I order, therefore, she have the sorts in full upon all the issues—pait because the is entitled to them, and the rest be cause the hush md ought to find the funds for debating so serious a question aa that which he has raised, though successfully, against bis wife. ■ Then she is.plainly entitled to alimony, and the decree nisi will cn'y be pronounced upon that condition. She shall have the cu t >dy of the child until farther notice. Ihe judge had done what he could. Mrs Langworthy’s marriage he was compelled to declare invalid, but even from this invalid marriage Mr Langworthy was not to be set free until he had paid an alimony, provided for the maintenance of the child, and defrayed ail co its in all the actions which ho had raised to prt veut Mrs Lang worthy’s claim coming before the Chart. No court of law could have done more for Mrs Langworthy than was done for her by Sir James Hannen, and the terms of hi-judgment show clearly enough what bis opinion was of the merits of the case which came before him for jurisdiction. (To be continued.)

Reporters, Jury. Lumley. Mrs LanRworthy Colyer. | Bircham. Willis. Kussell. Inderwick. Bayford. Rose Innes. | Middleton.