In defense of H.J. Hussey, I read the account of his "Rogueishness" in Don Master's book and also in Nigel Brown's work and I think the conclusions are dubious leaps to conclusion by only one man's opinion. (Webley, owner of Lang & Hussey at the time)
Webley was dictating how the business was to be run and was by my assessment, a micro-manager in an aloof, annoying fashion. The company was cutting bonuses, cutting pay and treating the employees with disregard as Webley led the ship aground.
Hussey took some guns to auction and in one of two cases cited, sold a gun for 68 pounds and turned in 60 pounds to the firm. A thief wouldn't turn in a receipt for 68 pounds and 60 pounds, a thief would take the gun and play coy as to what happened to the gun, or would shake down suppliers, or a cadre of other easier ways to exploit the situation.
My guess is that Hussey covered his expenses or gave the pay to one or more of his employees or felt he was entitled in some way to the difference for some unreimbursed expense from Webley.
By all accounts it was Hussey's demeanor, shooting expertise and world renowned gun fitting that made him a star at Lang & Hussey. He did the work in the front room, Webley was the private equity firm so to speak. In the end, Hussey went on to be as famous with his customers after the Lang & Hussey years as during them, so I think his customers thought more of his integrity than Webley's allegation.
In conclusion, I regret that Don Masters and Nigel Brown only told Webley's side of the story and did so in a fashion that didn't withhold judgment. We simply cannot determine if Hussey was a thief, was justified, or just made a bad executive decision for the firm of Lang & Hussey. I tend to be more lenient on Hussey simply because his actions speak more to poor decision making than to outright dishonest thievery.
