A STRANGE TRUE STORY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLX, Issue 8169, 22 August 1887, Page 3

A STRANGE TRUE STORY.

THE LANG WORTHY MARRIAGE. (From, the Pall Mall Budget.) (Continued.) CHAPTER XXX [II. IN IKE SERVICE OF THE POOB. Towards the close of 1885 Mra Lang worthy went back to Ireland, where she spent Christmass with her parents, cheered by the presence of her little Gladys, the ‘ alleged child,’ from whom sbe had been separated almost from birth. Cbrlctmaa time was, however, overshadowed by the near approach of the date when the six months for which the decree nisi was granted would expirS. It was necessary to get back to London to press her claim, and to oppose the demand that the decree should be made absolute. Bat how was she to maintain herself in town 1 All her tffjrta to procure an engagement as teacher, ns companion, or anything, had failed. She was getting desperate, when suddenly, like a light in a dark place, came a letter from the Rev. H. B. Chapman, offering her to become responsible for LI a week for three monthe if she would come to the Mission Home, 152, Cam-den-grove, North Peckham, where she would have board and lodgings while engaged in parochial work. Mrs Langworthy had beard Mr Chapman preach one of bis eloquent and sympathetic discourses, and she had appealed to him in her despair. He answered her appeal witbont having seen her, and she at once acc-pted his offer. She left Belfast on January I, 1886, and arrived, after a miserable journey, at her new quarters, with a severe cald, which so swelled her face as to make her by no means an attractive object, ' The arrangement made by Mr Chapman did cot prove acceptable to the lady In charge of the home, who bad not been consulted about the engagement, and, to make a long story short, in a few days he proposed to send Mrs Langworthy back to Bel fast—the matron be said, did not want a woman worker, and the engagement most be cancelled. As Mra Langworthy could not go back to Belfast without risking the lois of everything, she humbly begged to be allowed to remain in the home, without wages, pledging her alimony—when she got it—to defray the coat of her board and lodgings. She had a district given her of 189 families, which she had to visit and she had to take charge of a club for girls which had bsen established in the parish. In return for this, she had credit for board and lodgings - until such time as Mr Langworthy could be induced to pay her alimony, , Beggars, however, must not be choosers, and Mrs Langworthy, sheltered at last, with plenty of work, and many loving young hearts around her, was happier than she lad been since her husband had repudiated her marriage. The work was new, but not uncongenial. Parish visiting in Southwark is not exactly idyllic work, but it brought her into close contact with the sufferings of others, and conferred the inestimable boon of compelling her to forget her own sorrows in ministering to the wants of the poor, the sick and the dying. By degrees the strangeness wore away, and she learned to know the people among whom her life was spent. To some of them she naturally became much attached. Among these there was a bedridden man of ninetysix, who was a special favorite, as also was a very amiable blind man, with whom she used to while away many a weary hcuc by. reading and cheerful chat. There werfi among the 180 families the usual compliment o( sickly children, and she took great pleasure in tending the little sufferers and doing what she could to alleviate their pain. One of the many excellent charities in Mr Chapman’s parish was the free dinner for,the poorest children, and It was ever a delightful duty to serve the hungry youngsters who crowded to be fed. On one occasion after she bad given them two ‘helpings’ of treacle and suet pudding all round to seventy children, Mra Langworthy, sticky and weary, felt as if she for once had had almost too much of a good thing. Her great delight, however, was in the Girl s Club, where she spent every evening from seven ti> ten, The institution founded in 1885 under the presidency tf Mrs Hone Golduey, who is a kind of lady patroness of Mr Chapman’s parish, constant in all good works, and spending her time, and money without stint among his parishioners passed under her charge. Thera were 125 ! girl members of the club, and it was an intense pleasure tor Mrs Langworthy to find herself becoming the centre round which gathered the love and devotioa of so many fresh young hearts.

CHAPTER XXX l V, MB TO THE BEST OF MY BELIEF DANBT. Although Mra Langworthy was thus spendding all her waking hours in the service of the poor of Southwark, she was from time to time called away to attend courts, and still more frequently to visit her solicitors, Messrs Lamley. In the early spring of this year a great misfortune belel her, Mr Robert Lumley, the senior partner of the firm, who had always been a staunch friend of hers from the time she placed her case in his bands, fell ill and soon after died. Ho was 8UOO! oded by his younger brother, Mr Theodore Lumley, to whom he left the duty -of seeing Mrs Langwotthy through her troubles. Mr Theodore has been faithful to his brother’ trust, but it was some time before Mrs Langworthy could ascend the familiar stair without a sense of ■ strangeness and of the absence of the man who had stood by her when her troubles were the thickest, and when there seemed no ray of light amid her gLom. There is no place in all London more familiar to Mrs Lang worthy than the office of Messrs Lumley and Lumley, in Conduit-street, which is famous as having been the residence of Canning. The latter fact is attested by the moral tablet which is affixed on the outside wall, and tradition says that the consulting room of Mr Lumley is the same apartment where George Canning used to receive the Ambassadors of foreign Powers in the Irief day of bis brilliant Administration. It is still a spacious room, and the ceiling, covered with frescoes, is much as It was when It looked down on Canning and saw ‘ the flash «f bis ethereal brow,’ but the floor is littered with 'law books and the waits are lined with brief-boxes. A grim and grimy bust of Lord Eldon, perched on a bookcase, serves as a connecting link between the past and the present. The present occupant of the room, Theodore Lumley, is a much more pleasant incarnation of the law than the sonl-vi-aged Lord Chancellor who presides as the tutelary deity of his office, and it was under his direction that Mrs Langworthy continued her ..unequal fight. ... It might have been thought that Mr vLa->g-worthy, having succeeded in establishing the invalidity of the marriage by which he had entrapped his wife, wculd have been content to pay the alimony and the costs awarded by the Gonrt. Not so thought Mr Langworthy, Coolly disregarding the order and the conditions on which the decree nisi was gran!el, he applied, in February, 1886, to have the decree made absolute, The first move was made by Mr Thomas Wilson Danby, who filed an affidavit which is worthy to rank among the other affidavits employed as weapons of war against Mrs Langworthy. This affidavit, filed February 1,1886, contained several remarkable statements—made * to the best of my belief.’ One of these i« as follows: There is now exhibited to me, and marked X>, an advertisement, which I am informed, aad believe, was inserted in The Times of August 23, 1882, by the said petitioner, in which is the followicg words: ‘Will any gentlemen kindly lend a young lady L4C for six months, on personal security-?—Miss P.,' Hamilton Brothers, la, Belgrave-road, S. W.’ And it was under this advertisement, to the best of my belief, that the petitioner and the respondent became acquainted. There was not the least foundation for this - statement. The trath about this advertisement has already been mentioned. Not one fraction of evidence was ever adduced in favor of this allegation. It rests solely upon 1 the best of my belief and I am informed ’—the affidavit does not

say by whom, bat the assumption is that the informant was the same veracious authority who assured Mr Groves in March, 1884, so distinctly and emphatically that there never had been any former ce-.emony, or pretended form or ceremony"of marriage, between Mr and Mrs Langworthy. But no matter though M r-Lsng-worthy had been caught out in a barefaced lie, that does not prevent MrDanby repeating bis statements as truths—always of course ‘ ti the best of my belief.’ But Mr-Dauby went farther. He even ventured to make an absolute assertion on his own authority—which unfortunately _was as inaccurate as those statements of his client which ‘to the best of my belief ’ were true. Mrs Langworthy in her affidavit stated that there had been as issue of the marriage one child only, Elizabeth Gladys Langworthy, In reply to this Mr Danby swore : _ As to paragraph 6 of said affidavit the said respondent has not admitted the paternity of the child in such paragraph referred to. Yet when the case was heard before Sir James Hannen, Mr Inderwick, Mr Langworthy’s representative, intervened on his behalf, when the judge gave the custody of the child to the mother, in order that Mr Langworthy’s rights to the child might be preserved, and the words were added by the judge to the decree with that end. The decree nisi concludes thus

And farther ordered that the child E : ’zabeth Gladys Langworthy, issue of the marriage so in fact had and solemnised, between the petitioner and the respondent, remain in the custody of the petitioner until further order of the Court, but directed that such child be not removed ont of the jurisdiction of the Court without its sanction, and gave leave for further application to be made. Nevertheless, in face of that degree, carefully framed at Mr Langworthy’s counsel’s instance to have his claim to the ultimate custody of the child intact, Mr Danby swore ‘ the respondent has not admitted the paternity of the child.’

Another curious thing appears in the affidavit of Mr Danby. He mentions as if it were a strong point in favor of Mr Langworthy that it is by Belgian law an offence punishable by fine and imprisonment for a person to perform such a ceremony as chat over which the Rev. Dr Potts had presided. But who engaged Dr Potts to break the Belgian law—who paid him for the service, and so rendered necessary the action of the Procurenr du Koi, who summoned Dr Potts to his parquet, but found that the reverend Doctor badjeft the country ? Who, indeed, but Edward Martin Lsng worthy, barriater-at-law, whose money was defraying all the expense of this prolonged litigation? Langworthy was shameless as he is cruel. This affidavit of Mr Danby’s was a reply to an affidavit filed by Mrs Langworthy setting forth the salient facta of her case, and praying that the decree might not be made absolute, as the costa weaa unpaid, the alimony withheld, and no provision made for the maintenance and education of the child. Such were the pleas that went before Mr Justice Butt when Mr Langworthy applied for the rule to be made absolute. CHAPTER XXXV. ANOTHER STAB IN THE BACK. The decree nisi had been granted by Sir James Hannen. The application to maka it absolute came on before Mr Justice Butt. Thus both the judges of the Probate and Divorce Division were called upon to adjudicate upon the Langworthy marriage, so that the merits and demerits of the case should bs thoroughly sifted to the bottom by independent minds, and no possible loophole left for the allegation that the universal condemnation which has'been judicially pronounced upon Mr Langworthy’a conduct was due to the bias ol partiality of a single judge. . _ When the case was called for hearing on February 16th, Mrs Langworthy shrank from taking the place she had occupied when Sir Charles Russell’s remarks about the ‘alleged child ’ fell upon her ear like a flake of burning brimstone. She was represented by Mr Bayford and Mr Rose-Innes. Mr Inderwick appeared for Mr Langworthy. When the application was made that the rule should be made absolute, Mr Justice Butt pointblank refused. He said the condition on which the decree nisi was granted was that alimony should be paid and maintenance decreed for the child. Alimony, had not been paid, and the decree should not be made absolute without the sum ordered for the child’s maintenance b-ing inserted in it. Mr Bayford, who appeared for Mrs Langworthy, aeked, what is the proper maintenance for the child 1 Mr Justice Butt: The same as if it were a valid marriage that is dissolved. , Mr Inderwick protested. The marriage, he said, never had been good. It was substantially only a bastardy order that was wanted;— so low can the counsel of the rich stoop in defending the pockets from which come their fees. Mr Justice Butt asked : Did the petitioner believe that she was in fact married ? Mr Bayford read the evidence of Dr Betts, which'was clear and umnistakeable. At this point in the case a mine was sprung upon Mrs Langworthy in the shape of another false affidavit. Mr Langworthy, before his marriage, appears to have visited the George Hotel, Winchester, in company with a female who passed ns bis wife, and occupied his room. It appears to have occurred to Mr Langworthy that he could turn hie own sin to account to blast the good name of the lady whose life he had already marred. So when the first trial came on one Annie Smith, a chambermaid at the George, was brought to Court as a spectator. From the affidavit she appears to have been asked by Messrs Bircham’s representative it she remembered Mr Langworthy’a visit. Perfectly. He bad spent a night at the George on August 30th, 3882. Could she remember the lady ? Yes, if she saw her; certainly. Then the affidavit says that the respondent’s solicitors pointed ont to the chambermaid from Winchester the figure of Mrs Langworthy, who was seated at the table with her lawyer. Was that the lady ? AR that is known is that Annie Smith swore that Mrs Langworthy was the woman who cohabited with Mr Langworthy at the George Hotel, Winchester, August 30th, 1882. ' • ; Unfortunately for the value of this evidence, Mra Langworthy had only once raised her veil all the time she was in Court, and then her face was turned to the judge, and her back to the gallery where Annie Smith must have t een. It was a thick dark veil, which effectually concealed her features. All that Annie Smith could have seen was the veiled figure of a lady which may have resembled in contour the’figure of the occupant of Mr Langworthy’s room at the George in 1882. If so, it differed materially from the contour of Miss Long at that dat% For three years of misery had not left her unchanged, and those who knew the light-hearted, high-spirited, girlish woman of 1882 would have hesitated in recognising the sad and careworn woman of 1885. But as a matter of fact, Mrs Langworthy had never been at Winchester in her life, and on the date in question and during the whole of the month of August she had spent every night at 12, Bloomfield Terrace; as her landlady had already teatifie3. The whole story was fiction, which*would not hold water for a moment. Mr Justice Butt refused to make the rule absolute, and referred the question to the Registrar to decide what under the circumstances ought to be allowed; The Registrar should take into consideration whether either party thought it a valid marriage. Any other evidence could be taken that was desirable, and in the meantime the decree was suspended, The order was as follows

That it be referred to the Registrar to inquire, ascertain, and report to the Court what provision, under the circumstances of the case, ought to be made for the maintenance and education of the child, issue of the alleged marriage of the petitioner and respondent, and it is further ordered that the Registrar do report whether (the: petitioners to the suit or either of them believed at the time of its celebration that the said alleged marriage was valid.

The question ,has not yet been settled, the preliminary payment of costa and alimony not yet having been made. Nothing daunted, Messrs Bircbam appealed from the decision of Mr Justice Butt to the Court of Appeal.

(To be continued*)