LOST PEARLS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 32, 8 February 1939, Page 12

LOST PEARLS.

VALUED AT £265. THEFT ALLEGATION. TRIAL OF TOTJHG WOMAN. I The disappearance of a striricr of pearls, valued at C2T>.%. was investigated it the Supreme Court, to-day before MY. .fust ice F;iir and a .wry, when a young woman. Kli/nbeth Ellen, (.'oodliue. was charged with theft of the necklace, the |ir.i|ierty of Lady Mary Isabel FTny Allen. Accused was alternatively chinred with receiving the pearls. Mr. \'. 1!. Meredith conducted the case for the Crown, inul Mr. T. Henry appeared for neensed. who pleaded not H'. 1! y. J,.-i<lv Allen, in evidence, said she entered the hospital on .Tuly i:\ Inst. She wa ■; wearing a of gvnuine pearl-. Mnrf nimtber of cultured j»carN. They were pluceil in a drawer in tlie rlrpfvinjr table in her room. During her stay in I'w hospital she did not have _i.rcHf»ion to look for the pearls. Slip, hed the cultured one* when *he came out, but tile others could not be found. The String Broke. Albert Laurence Bailey, tram conductor, xaid that lie remeinlK'red an iiecn-ion when accused visited his home jit Rj«4om. HI-; mother and lister were living tvi l, ! him at the time. He noticed the (»:'iwfi] (V(ii< wearing rvenrlrf round her neck. The sfrinii broke, and she "pot a liit annoyed." and threw them in the fire. TTr> picked a few up. and [nit them on the mantelpiece. He did not know what liiip]iened to them after Unit. Detective J. B. Finlay said that on January Iβ he saw the accneed at a hotel at Kaihii, North Auckland. A<-eueed. in a statement, said that one afternoon, when Lβdy Allen was out on the balcony, she went into the room to arrange some flowers, and saw a string of pearls on the drewwing table. Aecueed eaid that a* she was goin-j to n danpp that night she took the pearl* jiuid wore them. She did not know that they were re:il pearl*, and thought that thev were artificial hond". Mr. Henry said that the ease was in nn exceedingly small compass. Accused would give an explanation of the happening that would show that sbc had no criminal intent. That was the crux of the whole matter. Accused Gives Evidence. Accused in evidence said that she was 11) years of age. As she was going to a dance, she took the pearls to wear with a low-necked dress. She intended to put them back next day. She took them back, but next day she was not on duty mid could not return them and thnt night el«c went to Bailey's place. She had never made a statement that she thought that the pearls were valuable. When the string broke she got annoyed, and threw them into the fire. She did not retain any of tho pearla, and had no intention of keeping them for herself. To Mr. Meredith: She thought that the value of the pearla would be about 2/0, and no more. Addressing the jury Mr. Henry said that there had been no intent of stealing the pearls. It bad been suggested the accused should have known the difference between imitations and real pearls, but it was easy to make a mistake. The question was whether she had criminal intention at the particular time. She had worn the pearls openly to a dance,' and but for an unfortunate happening would have put them back. The accused had not Had the guidance of a father for the last five years, but her life had been bUmelett.

Mr. Meredith said that the average girl had tame Idea of the value of Jewellery. The witness Bailey hud said that it was in September, soflie time after accused left the hospital, lie saw her with a string of pearle. After hit Honor summed up briefly tlic jury retired.