WOMAN FOR TRIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 293, 24 September 1935, Page 3

WOMAN FOR TRIAL

ALLEGED THEFT OF RING.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT REWARD (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, September 23. In the Magistrate’s Court to-day, Veronica Pope, a dressmaker, aged 24, was charged with stealing, on September 4, a diamond ring, valued at £SO, the property of Norino Stott, with obtaining credit by fraud of £5, and with stealing £5, also the property of Mrs Stott.

Senior-Detective Hall prosecuted. Accused, who was represented by Mr Sullivan, pleaded not guilty. Norine Stott said that on September 4 she placed her diamond ring on the. sideboard at her home. She went out, and on returning a few minutes later discovered that the ring was missing. Accused, who conducted a business a few doors from lier shop, and often visited her, called later in the day. On being told of the loss of the ring she said witness could search her if she liked.

Some days later she called to see accused, and told her that she was very worried about the loss of the ring, and suggested advertisihg for it. Accused said: “What about some of those ransom stunts in America? This is where the third party comes in. If I write a letter to accompany the • advertisement you could use my place as a depot for receiving the ring, and I would pay out the reward.” Accused suggested a reward of £lO, but witness said she could not afford it, and £5 was decided on. Next day witness, a friend, and accused drafted a letter, mostly at accused’s dictation. An advertisement was inserted in a newspaper referring to this letter, which could be picked up at the newspaper office. The letter stated that it was known that the ring had been taken. A guarantee was given that nothing further would be done or said about the matter if the ring was returned, and a reward of £5 was offered. The reward would be given by a totally disinterested third party, who was under the impression that the money was for repairs. Whoever returned the ring would be perfectly safe from recognition. Continuing, witness gave evidence of conversations with accused, which were overheard by a detective, in the bathroom of witness’s house. She gave accused' the £5 .for the reward. On September 12 accused came in and said she bad great news. The ring was as good as found, because the letter had been lifted from the newspaper office. She said she had: not been to town, but had rung the office to inquire. Next day accused came in, saying : “Quick! Quick! Is this it?” She was holding the ring. She was then arrested by a detective. Two clerks gave evidence that accused visited! the newspaper office on the morning of September 12, and asked for the letter, which was given to her. Detective McLean described overhearing at Mrs Stott’s house convei sations with accused about the possibility of the ring being returned; He saw her take the letter from the newspaper office, and followed her home from there. Asked! who gave her the ring, after she had been arrested, accused said a man with a bicycle had handed it to her only two or three minutes previously. He was wearing a light tweed' suit. She had only seen him for a few seconds. He mumbled something about repairs and she handed him the £5. ■ , Mr Sullivan said the. evidence on. the theft charge was exceedingly light. Accused had a complete answer to the accusations. He would ask that her name he suppressed in the meantime. The Magistrate, Mr F. R. Hunt, committed accused to the Supreme Court for trial, bait of £-50 being allowed. He refused to suppress her name.