FAMILY JARS.—MRS LEWIS' APOLOGY.

Observer, Volume 4, Issue 89, 27 May 1882, Page 163

FAMILY JARS.— MRS LEWIS' APOLOGY.

There was. quite a flutter in certain mercantile and social circles, on Monday, when a notice signed " Julia Lewis " appeared in the advertising columns of the Herald. The announcement was headed " Public Apology," in large type, and was addressed "to Messrs Hesketh and Richmond, solictors for Mr G-abriel Lewis." It was a reply to a communication from that firm of the ,13th inst. It acknowledged that Julia Lewis, the author of the apology was the writer of the anonymous letter sent to 0. A. Harris, Esq., about the 11th day of April, 1881, as well as of another anonymous letter to L\ Hean, Esq. (manager of the National Bank, Auckland), about the 15th day of December of the same year. Mrs Lewis further stated that .she unreservedly withdrew all imputations conveyed by those letters, admitted that she never had any grounds on which to justify them, that she desired to express her deep regret that she ever penned the letters, and in token of her sincerity she enclosed a cheque for £100 to be distributed among the charities of Auckland. Finally she gave liberty to use the letter as the recipients might please, and promised never to offend in any such manner' again.

Before this singular advertisement even the absorbing interest which usually attaches to the first days' of the Parliamentary session into comparative insignificance, and the mysterious apology formed the topic of conversation on 'Qhange, in the restaurants, at the street corners, and in the warehouses and offices. The question that agitated the public mind was "What could be the nature of the letter* referred to which could have caused such a' breach of friendship between two leading families hitherto supposed to be on the best tei'ms with each other ?" Mr Lewis, and all the persons referred to in the advertisement, were besieged by anxious 1 inquirers, but without anything being elicited which would throw light on the mystery. As usual in such cases, many people put the worst possible construction on the affair, and all sorts of exaggerated stories were circulated reflecting on the parties. To stop the tongue of scandal we set ourselves to work to unravel the mystery, and with some difficulty succeeded in obtaining authentic and connected particulars of the circumstances. We publish them in order to set doubts at rest, and to shew how easy is the process of making a mountain out of a molehill. So far as the actual facts go, it appears that Mrs Julia Lewis, in a fit of temper, and without any knowledge of the legal consequences, wrote certain letters, but that none of the parties actually involved in the affair have been guilty of any very heinous offence against the law or public morals.

The difference between the two families of Edward Lewis and Gabriel Lewis arose out of old business transactions. When the firm of Lewis Bros, came to grief the National Bank was a fully-secured creditor to the amount of between"£2o,ooo and £30,000. Gabriel Lewis took a trip to Europe to make arrangements with his clients for carrying on the business. Meanwhile the National Bank entrusted Mr Edward Lewis with the realisation of the estate, consisting of goods amounting in value to £15,000 or £20,000, on a commission of 5 per cent. When Gabriel Lewis returned, the partnership between the. two brothers was renewed, Mr Edward Lewis, by arrangement with the bank and at the solicitation of friend s,, throwing in as capital the £700 or £800 Avhich he had made in the shape of commission, and the unsold balance of the stock — the pick of.it having been sold. Mr Gabriel Lewis possessed practically no capital.' The bank, however, supplied the funds for the new firm. But a time came when the operations of the business were obstructed through lack of sufficient capital, and Mr Gabriel Lewis appealed to Mrs Edward Lewis, who had property bequeathed by her former husband, to come to the firm's assistance with a loan of £700. She went to a relative and stated the case, and the reply was : " You must recollect that your late husband left you this money for your own use during your lifetime, but your children have a reversionary interest in it, and therefore, in justice to them, you ought not to employ any of the money in a transaction that has any element of risk."

Acting on this counsel, Mrs Lewis declined to advance the money, though a large rate of interest was offered. From this point the breach of friendship may be said to have occurred, and it rapidly widened from other causes. The two brothers quarrelled in their business relations. Gabriel wanted to launch out and extend their consignments. At the same time the bank was pressing for payment of the balance of the money due on the stock, over which it held a bill-of-sale, and wanted further security for the overdraft. G-abriel proposed that security should be given over the consignments, but Edward declined to consent to the arrangement on the ground that it would be unfair to foreign creditors. Ultimately Edward Lewis proposed that he should be allowed to retire from the firm, forfeiting his share of the profits, and falling back on the private income of his wife. This was at length acceded to, but there had been a good deal of recrimination between the two families, and much ill-feeling was engendered, the quarrel extending to the female members. Mrs Edward Lewis appears to have thrown herself into the quarrel with a bitterness of feeling which carried her beyond the bounds of prudence and legal restraints.

Early in April, 1881, Mr C. A. Harris, who was about to entrust the sale of his household furniture to Mr Q-abriel Lewis, preparatory to a trip to England, received an anonymous letter, containing implications against the auctioneer, and warning Mr Harris that respectable Christians would not attend the sale. Afterwards Mr Hean, manager of the National Bank, also received an, anonymous letter, warning him not to entrust Mr G-abriel Lewis with the funds of the bank, and accusing him of improper conduct in business. According to Mr Hean's statement, he regarded the letter as a joke, and, without any suspicion as to the authorship, showed it to Mr G-abriel Lewis. There was- so little attempt at disguising the handwriting, or it had been so

clumsily done, ; that Mr Levris and his ' friend found jno difficulty in tracing it to Mtb Julia Lewis, by comparison with other letters bearing her signature. I?6r some time the fire only smouldered, and Mr Edward Lewis was in blissful ignorance of the coming blaze. The letter to Mr Harris having also found its way into the posse^sipn of Mr Gfabriel Lewis, he handed both over to Messrs Hesketh and Bichmond with instructions to begin legal proceedings. Then, of course, the fat was in the fire. The lawyers demanded, an apology', and were referred to Mr Tyler. Mrs Lewis went to consult the latter on the situation. To his surprise she frankly ad- , mitted that she had written the letters, and expressed her willingness to offer any reasonable reparation to the injured party. An apology was accordingly tendered, and accepted on condition that it should be accompanied with a donation of £100 to the local charities. Hence the advertisement in the Herald, and the following allotment of the money : — St. Stephen's Orphan Home, Parnell, £20 ; St. Mary's School, £20 ; Old Men and Women's Eefuge, £10 ; Ladies' Benevolent Society, £10 j Auckland Dispensary, £10 ; Poor Convalescent Patients' Hospital, £10 ; Poor Convalescent Patients' Asylum, £10 5 Prisoners' Aid Society, £10 ; total, £100.

The old proverb that it is an ill -wind that blows nobody good is again verified in this instance. By this comparatively harmless squabble between two families, of which the public of Auckland would have known little, and cared less, but for the appearance of the advertisement, eight deserving and necessitous institutions are materially benefitted, and two respectable legal firms receive a considerable sum in fees, Mrs Julia Lewis paying all costs. There was, however, a tacit understanding on Mr Tyler's part at least, that the apology should only be used for private purposes, and should not, be published in the newspapers, but the concluding words of it seem to imply that the defendants did not insist on that restriction in the actual terms of the settlement. Since the appearance of the apology, however, Messrs Hesketh and Biehmond have disclaimed any share in its publication. 'As to the Bank it comes out of the affair without the loss of a copper. It Hot only recovered its advances but got compound interest, thanks to the tact and business skill displayed by Mr IKean. Instead of sacrificing the estate by a forced sale, Mr Hean allowed it to be judiciously realised by Mr Edward Lewis, who was in the best position, from his knowledge of the business, to effect that result with mutual advantage. Here the story ends. It has been necessary in evolving this rather prosy little family quarrel to detail family circumstances of a somewhat delicate nature, but we have endeavoureed to touch them with a delicate • hand, and while giving a clear and connected account of all the facts bearing upon the case, to avoid causing unnecessary pain or annoyance. Now that all parties in the transaction are satisfied, it is to be hoped they will shake hands, forget their differences, and live in future harmony.