Woman Denies Theft Of Two Diamond Rings

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29068, 3 December 1959, Page 27

Woman Denies Theft Of Two Diamond Rings

A cheap synthetic ring which could be purchased in a chain store for a few shillings had been substituted for a diamond ring valued at £7O in a New Regent street jeweller’s display pad. A similar switch had been made with a diamond ring valued at £55 belonging to a Colombo street jeweller, it was alleged in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Patricia Marion McFarland, aged 41, a widow (Mr G. W. Rountreel was committed for trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court in Christchurch on charges of stealing a diamond ring valued at £7O, the property of Petersens, Ltd., and of stealing a diamond ring valued at £55. the property of Whales Jewellers, on October 23. Messrs R. H. Harris and W. W Laing, Justices of the Peace, were on the Bench. Winifred Anderson, a married woman and shop assistant, said that a man and a woman came into the shop of Petersens, Ltd., New Regent street, where she was employed, about 3 p.m. on October 23. They asked to see some engagement rings and she showed them a couple of display pads containing rings taken from the window.

The couple decided on a ring valued at £67, said Mrs Anderson. They gave the name of Jackson. When told that a deposit would have to be paid they said they would have to go-to the Post Office to draw out some money and asked that the ring be set aside. When the display pads were replaced in the window she did not notice that any ring was missing. After a ring was purchased a tag with the word “sold*’ was inserted in the groove in the pad from which the ring was taken. The couple did not return and later the same day she was shown a ring by the police which she identified as one that had been taken from the pad.

Irving John Robb, a director of Petersens, Ltd., jewellers, said that when he returned from having tea about 6 p.m. on FridayOctober 23, he looked in the window and saw that a large three stone synthetic ring was in the place of a diamond ring which was valued at £7O. The police were notified of the theft by telephone. Later the same evening the police showed him a diamond ring which he identified as the one which had been stolen from his firm, said Robb. It had come from the pad in which the synthetic ring was found. The ring was listed in the stock records and had never been sold. The defendant had no authority to be in possession of it. Pamela Florence Silcock, a shop assistant, said she was employed by Whales Jewellers of 677 Colombo street. About 4.30 p.m. on October 23 a man and the accused came into the shop. She showed them an engagement ring from the window but they said it was not suitable. She asked them to go out into the street and point out the ring they wanted to inspect. A diamond engagement ring in a square setting, of platinum in a cream case, valued at £55 was chosen. She showed the ring to the accused and the man.

At that stage other customers came into the shop and she went to the back to get Mrs Field, Miss Silcock said. When she returned the accused and the man were just leaving the shop. The lid of the diamond ring case was down and when she opened it she saw that it contained a cheap ring. The original diamond ring was missing. She followed the man and the accused out into the street and first of all spoke to the man and then followed the accused into Cashel street and spoke to her outside the entrance to the Attic coffee lounge. The witness showed her the cheap ring and she denied that she had the diamond ring. Mrs Field came up and asked the accused to return to the shop. Agnes May Joy Field, a married woman, said she was manageress of Whales Jewellers at 677 Colombo street. As soon as the accused was taken back to the shop the door was locked. The accused asked to use the toilet and the telephone but the requests were refused. “I saw the accused’s hand go towards a vase on the counter and there was a tinkling sound.” Mrs Field said. “I put in my hand and took out the missing ring and said: ‘Thanks very much.’ The accused then said: *Now you can let me go.’ but she replied ‘You will have to wait until the police arrive so that they can return your property.’ I was referring to the synthetic ring." Detective-Constable D. C. Lee said that when he asked the accused to come to the detective offica she became abusive and

he had to place her under arrest on a charge of stealing a diamond ring. At the police station he asked the accused her name and address but she refused to give them. She then gave several names and finally the name under which she was charged. When the accused was lodged in the cells four rings were taken from her possession, DetectiveConstable Lee said. Shortly after a telephone message was received from Petersens, Ltd. and as a result of what he was told he took one of the rings to the firm’s premises and it was identified as belonging to the company. The defendant was granted bail at £2OO with two sureties of £2OO and was ordered to report twice weekly to the C. 1.8.