CHAPTER LVIII.

Otago Witness, Issue 1866, 26 August 1887, Page 9

CHAPTER LVIII.

DELAY, DELAY, STILL MORE DELAY.

When Edward Langworthy fled the country in April, 1886, with intent to defeat and delay his creditor, Mrs Langworthy filed a petition against him in bankruptcy. The alimony due at the time the petition was filed was L 2,500. In addition to this, there were taxed costs amounting to L 463 which were due to Messrs Lnmley. Not one penny of this had been paid. Every recurring month this liability had been increased by LIOO, according to the decree of the High Court of Justice, and every month Edward Langworthy had punctually neglected to pay a single farthing. It was of course discreditable for him to b.e formally adjudicated a bankrupt, s,o he fell back upon Ms old tactics. When Edward Langworthy is ii} a fi.x his first instinct seems to be to apply to Messrs Bircham, where the faithful Mr Groves and the resauroeful 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, which this time was 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. had applied to an English Court for the issue of a commission to proceed to Buenos

Ayres. A^ similar application had been successful'm the case of a lawsuit th^ had been begun against Mr L^angw.brthy by a Woolwich artisan, concerning whose treat' m.ent a^nfl |hat of his fellow-workmen we may have something more to say 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 Danby's own 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 the jurisdiction of the Court as long as he thought that denial would injure his wife. The moment he thought that he could make use of the jurisdiction of the Court in order 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 », he again raised the question' of domicile, for the same purpose as that for which he originally pleaded it. Mrs Langworthy therefore appears to be domiciled either in England or the Argentine Republic exactly according to his convenience. When he thinks that the Courts will decide in his favor, he appears

before them as a British subject domiciled within their jurisdiction. The moment the same Courts orders him to discharge the duties of a British subject, ajid honor 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 reoeived from the Argentine Republic, an application was made by Messrs Bircha,m to Mr Registrar Hazlitt on March 18, 1887, for a commission to examine the debtor as to domicile. He did not desire, said Mr Yate Lee, to be made a debtor in his absence.

The case was heard in Bankruptcy Buildings, before the Registrar. There were about a dozen persons present, including Mrs Langworthy, ju.n. , for whom Mr Woolf appeared to opppse the application for a commission., a,nc( to press that the order in bankruptcy should he granted without ur^her dejay,

Mr Woolf, on behalf of Mrs Langworthy, insisted that the application was purely and solely dilatory. Mrs Langworthy 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 any allegations contained in the bankruptcy petition. She further declared on oath ;—

The said Edward Martin Langworthy is keeping out of the way in order to defeat and delay the proceedings taken cgunst 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 foi a commission in this matter is made bona fide, and not for the purposes of delay.

" This," said Mr Danby, " is true, to the best of my information and belief."

The first point, therefore, to b& decided was whether "the best oj Mr Danby J s information and belief " corresponded to the actual fact. Mr Woolf asked him —

Has this application been made ar, the rcqupst of the debtor ?

What application are you referring to 1 Your application to delay these proceedings further in order to send out a commissioner to the Argentine Republic. ' "

It has. If, therefore, the application for a commission was a bona fide application, %nd, npt made solely for pnr'ppses of, delay, Mr Langworthy's letters, if prodded; w]ouid prove whether Mr Danby was ; conjeqt \u denying on oath^hjat the proceedings were not for the purposes of/d^l&'y. Mr, Danby w,a,a therefore us'ked" to produce the^ testers, He .demurred. He would produce sQme, h&sajd.. He objected to produce ail. Mr Hazlitt told him that l^e. w%s doing himself an injustice by th 4 line, he was taking, and ultimately, %pt in cioss-Qxamination, but in answer tci his own counsel,' Mr Danby produced the, letters. The following is a note of what passed : — Mr Yate Lee; WJiat instructions have you had from Mr Langworthy with regard, to his examination abroad ?

A letter from Langworthy was then putinajsd read. It was dated 10th January. The envelope was not, kept ; but it came from Bella \tstft, & the Gran Ch^co

Messrs Bircham— l had. mst Maw to enclose you in myJetfcerof the 2stb. ult, the writ in bankruptcy serifed on roe by Miss Long, and asked you to obtain defc^aayoiikDowlam domiciled wit here, and I cp,nfe»3,l fail to see 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, Bince 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, ' . ' December 29 [no yearl. "^ I have not received .the affidavit you say you have sent me in a registered letter, as there is no registered post effice near. It has got stuck somewhere. 'I waa served with the enclosed writ by tbo woman's agents on the 24th 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 could produce were instructions to "delay the proceedings," and again "to obtain delay."