A DIAMOND PENDANT.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 175, 25 July 1924, Page 7

A DIAMOND PENDANT.

SERVANT GIRL'S THEFT. CIIARGE AGAINST CITY JEWELLER. Somewhat singular circumstances were connected with a charge of theft preferred against a local jeweller, George I Arthur Jenness, in the Magistrate's I Court at Wellington on Wednesday. | Chief-Detective Kemp explained that I the ease arose out of the theft by a j servant girl named Mary Green of a diamond pendant, valued" at £65, from the late Mrs. Wheeler, of Martinbornugh. On the morning of April 11 ehe i went to accused's business premises, ! conducted under the style of Jenness and . Partridge, jewellers, Cuba Street, I showed the pendant to accused and left ! it with him. When she returned in tin?' afternoon she was seen by the foreman, I who stated that the pendant was worth £17.. The girl then agreed to sell it. It was not quite clear at the first inter-1 view whether she wanted to sell tho article or merely to have it valued. 11l payment for the pendant she received a wristlet watch valued at £10 and £7 in money. Sometime after her departure for the South Island, Green received a letter from the owner's solicitor asking for the return of the pendant, and she accordingly forwarded the following letter to Jenness: — "Strictly private. Dear Sir, —Do you remember mc bringing into you about two months ago a diamond pendant star? Well, is there any chance of , mc getting it back from you, as I have got into serious trouble over it? If there is, will you let mc know by return. If there is no chance of mc getting it back, I wish you won't say to anyone you have seen mc even. If you have not me!' -d the star, put the diamonds back in again and return it to mc. If you remember I got a watch and £7 for it. Anyway if you have it tell mc and I will call and see you in the end of July privately and explain all then. Please burn this letter as it is strictly private between you and I. I will do the same with you " Proceeding, the chief detective stated that accused had forwarded a reply, which unfortunately had been burnt. On June 26. some time after the girl's arrest, Jenness was interviewed by Detectives Sinclair and Thomas, but he denied all knowledge of the pendant, and when seen the same afternoon by Detectives Sinclair and Murch he again stated "lhat he knew nothing about it. The following day the woman Green, accompanied the two' detectives to tho shop, and still Jenness persisted in his denial. On June 28, however, he called at the Detective Office, and for the first time informed Detective Sinclair that he had had the pendant, but had sold it to his partner for £22 10/. Later, be explained, he had obtained it back and took it to Lower Hutt, where it was secreted. "From the moment he knew that the pendant was stolen, that was when he received the girl's letter," added the chief detective, "he had committed theft." Witnesses, including Mary Green and Detectives S : nclair and Murch, gave evidence along the lines of the chief detective's opening. On accused's behalf, Mr. T. F. Martin submitted that the prospect of a conviction was so slight that it would be a waste of public money to send the case forward. There was, he contended, nothing in the girl's letter indicative of criminality, and guilty knowledge ! must be established before a crime could be held to be committed at all. j The magistrate (Mr. E. Page, S.M.), \ decided to send the case on for a jury's consideration. In passing, he remarked that the jrirl's letter of May 26 intimated clearly enough that she had not obtained the property properly. Accused's books as well had been altered in several respects. Accused did not enter a plea, and was committed to the Supreme Court for trial.