CHAPTER L.

Otago Witness, Issue 1865, 19 August 1887, Page 9

CHAPTER L.

" MADAM, I WANT YOU Tft TELL THE TRUTH."

The shorthand notes of the examination are in the custody of Messrs Bircbam, and as they have forbidden anyone to have aceessi thereto this apeount of the examinationmust be confined to the passages which have riveted themselves, in the> memory of the daughter-in-law and hey legal representatives. . . One such passage left an abiding impreasioni , .* .

" Did you know," asked Mr Kemp, in his severest tone, "did you know that your son's wife and child were destitute ?"

Mrs Langworthy tossed her head, flirted with her fan, and replied flippantly : "Never knew my son had a wife and child."

"Madam," said Mr Kemp, "did you never hear of the proceedings in the Divorce Court ?"

" No," said the unabashed old lady. " Do you mean to tell me," repeated Mr Kemp, indignantly, " that you did not know of these proceedings ?"

" Ah," said she, nonchalantly, " I heard aome rumor of them, in the newspapers." ,Mr Kemp stooped to fumble among his papers. He picked up and read the affidavit which Mrs Langworthy, sen., had made as to her son's possessions and presented to the Registrar in the course of the divorce pfcceedings. In face of that proof of her personal participation in the litigation, it was impossible to persist that her only knowledge of the proceedings was gained from rumors in the newspapers. She listened as the affidavit was being read, fanning herself the while. When it was over she said, " Oh, I did not know you meant that !" apd then in a curious plaintive way, she said, " If you will only tell me what you want me to say-: — " " Madam," said Mr £emp, " I want you to tell the truth."

Of this episode, only one word. Mrs Langworthy, could, of course, technically deny that her daughter-in-law, who was itting within a few yards of her, had as valid legal claim to the title of wife. That, however, does not cover the assertion that she did not know her son had a child. Possibly, Mrs Langworthy, sen., wished to dispute the paternity of little Gladys. It is not impossible, for it was actually disputed by Mr Inderwick when he applied for the decree nisi to be made absolute. That little incident — fortunately for Mr Inderwick, who of course acted on Messrs Birchams' instructions — was omitted from our narrative of the hearing of the case before Mr Justice , Butt. It was towards the close of the hearing, and after the Judge had expressed himself very strongly in favor of Mrs Langworthy, when Mr Inderwick stood up and informed the Court that he questioned the paternity of the child. Mr Justice Butt opened his eyes wide, and looked at Mr Inderwick. Then he said, in his quick, sharp way, " Let me look at the papers." They were handed up to him ; he turned them over, and came upon the report of Mr Langworthy's application about the custody of the child. Mr Justice Butt said : " I see Mr Langworthy applied to have the custody of the child. What did he want to have to do with another man's child? No more of that, sir !"

Whereupon Mr Inderwick sat down, probably feeling sorry that he had gone so far as to bring upon himself so severe a snub. But to resume the story of the interpleader. Mrs Langworthy, sen., denied that she knew her son had been in England until after he left it. She had, in fact, gone over to Paris to prevent his venturing within the jurisdiction. The cross-examination was conducted to prove collusion between mother and son. She was asked whether she was not then engaged in the attempt to transfer her son's property in South America to her own name. She replied that she had begun to transfer it. She had sent out a power of attorney on September 27, 1886, to transfer all his property in the Argentine Republic to her name, but she could not say whether the transfer had yet been effected. ' • And what do you intend to do with the property after it is transferred ?" "Oh, possibly I may at a later period make him a present of it." " Are you and your son on good terms ?" asked Mr Kemp, " Oh, yes," was her reply. When examined as to the articles seized, she asserted that all the animals were her own property ; she had reared and bred them herself, and could, if necessary, produce the groom to prove the fact. The Court, therefore, adjourned till the next day for the evidence of the groom.