CHAPTER LXVI.
"spenlow and jorkins."
No arrangement qd uld be more convenient than the familiar ami famous arrangement between Mr Spenlow and Mr Jorkins which is described in the pages of ' !)&$ Copperfield.' In that eminent firm the partner who was present was always willing to uo anything;. the difficulty always ]»y» y with the invisible partner. Mr Spenlow when receiving an applicant,, was always in mortal dread of Mr Jorkins. Of course nothing would give him greater pleasured but the terrible Mr Jorkins in the background ; no one could say what he would do. It was just the same when Mr Jorkins .was rto the fore and Mr Spenlow was the invisible partner. This arrangement, convenie'rit though it was for the members of the firm, had its disadvantages for the general public.
The" advantages of the system seem to have been present to the minds of Mri Langworthy, sen., of Maidenhead, and Mr Edward Martin Langworthy, of Bella Vista and the Langworthys mire et Jils seemed to have struck up some such partnership arrangement. As in this case Spenlow and Jorkins Vere separated by some 6,000 miles, the' inconveniences of troublesome customer! were correspondingly increased. Mrs Langworthy, jun., had now got an order in bankruptcy against her husband, but no sooner was the order granted than it was discovered that Mr Edward Martin Langworthy had no property at all in this country. On the contrary, instead of being, as was supposed, a man of great wealth, he was absolutely head over ears in debt. There were no assets — only claims ; and the chief creditor was norie other than the senior member in the firm— to wit, Mrs Langworthy, of Geys House, Maidenhead ! The way •in which responsibility passes from mother and son was illustrated in the success with which Mijs Langworthy, sen., defeated Mrs Langworthy, jun.'s, raid upon the goods and chattels addressed to her son at Southampton. A much more remarkable illustration is afforded •by the lawsuit now in progress between an artisan at Woolwich of the name of Wimble and Mrs Langworthy. This is an action brought by Wimble for- breach of contract. According to Wimble's story, he, with several other workmen, was engaged for a year by Mrs Langworthy, sen., to go out to work for Mr Langworthy in the Argentine Republic. When he got out, Mr Langworthy refused to pay him, and sent him and a mate abont his business. "I told him," said Wimble, " I had come out to him on a twelve months' agreement with his mother. He said he knew nothing.about.it." Wimble had to work his way back as best he could, His mate, not being a seaman, could not get a passage, and is still believed to be in the Argentine Republic, while his wife is said to be at present in one of the London workhouses. Wimble, returning home, instituted proceedings against Mrs Langworthy, Her defence was that she was only acting as her son's agent, and that he was the principal against whom proceedings, if any, should be taken. As the case is at present hung up until the report of a commission issued to take evidence as to the complainant's conduct in South America, we only allude to the case and the defence, as showing that between Mr Langworthy in South America, who knows nothing about his mother's , contracts, and Mrs Langworthy, sen.*, who is only the agent of her son, the unfortunate workman is in a somewhat evil case,
Yet at the same time that Mrs Langworthy, sen., was meeting the claim of Wimble by denying that she was anything more than her son's agent, and therefore not liable to be sued for his breach of contract, if any such breach was committed, she was meeting her daughter-in-law's claim to the goods seized at Southampton by asserting that the goods were purchased by her on her own behalf and for her own use on her own estate in South America! (This was in April, 1886.) What makes this more peculiar is that it was not till September in that year that she sent out a power of attorney to transfer her son's estate to her own name. So at least she swore before Baron Huddleston in February Jast.
(To ie continued.)
CHAPTER LXVI.
Otago Witness, Issue 1866, 26 August 1887, Page 10
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in