A DIAMOND PENDANT

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 256, 24 July 1924, Page 11

A DIAMOND PENDANT

SERVANT GIRL’S THEFT CHARGE AGAINST CITY JEWELLER Somewhat singular circumstances were connected with a charge of theft preferred against a local jetvcllcr, George Arthur Jenness, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Chief-Detective Kemp explained that the case arose out of the theft by a servant girl named Mary Green of a diamond pendant, valued at £65, front the late Mrs. Wheeler, of Martinborough. On the morning of April 11 she went to accused’s business premises. conducted under the style of Jenness and Partridge, jewellers, Cuba Street, showed the pendant to accused and left it with him. When she returned in the afternoon she Avas seen by the foreman, who stated that the pendant was worth £l7. The girl then agreed to sell it. It was not quite clear, at the first interview, whether she wanted to sell the article or merely to have it valued. In payment for the pendant she received a wristlet watch valued at £lO and £7 in money. Sometime after her departure for tho South Island Green received a letter from the owner’s solicitor asking for the return of the pendant, and she accordingly forwarded tho. ♦Bowing letter to jenness:— “Strictly private. Dear Sir, —Do you remember mo bringing into you about two months ago a diamond pendant star? . "Well, is there any chance of mo getting it back from you, as I have got into serious trouble over it ? If there is. will you let mo know by return. If there is no chance of me getting it back, I wish you won’t say to anyone you have seen me even. If von have not melted the star, put the diamonds back in again and return it to mo. If you remember I got a watch and £7 for it. Anyway, if you have it tell me and I will call and see you in tho 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 detectiro 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 ho denied all knowledge of the pendant, and Avlien seen the same afternoon by Detectives Sinclair and Murch ho again stated that he kiiOAV nothing about it. Tho following day tho tvoman Green, accompanied the two detectives to the shop, and still Jenness persisted in his denial. On Juno 28. however, ho called at the Detective Office, and for the first time informed Detective Sinclair that he had had the pendant, but had sold it co his parlnei for £22 10s. Later, he explained, ho had obtained it back and took it to Lower Hutt, Avhere it was secreted. “From the moment he knew’ that the pendant was stolen, that Avas when he received the girl’s letter,” added the chief detective, “ho has committed theft.” Witnesses, including Mary Greon and Detectives Sinclair and Murch, gave evidence along the lines of the chief detective’s opening. On accused's behalf. Mr. T. F. Mai. tin 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 tho girl’s letter indicative of criminality, and guilty knowledge must bo established before a crime could bo held to be committed at all. The Magistrate (Mr. E. Page, S.M.) decided to send tho case on for a jury’s consideration. In passing, he remarked that the girl’s letter of May 26 intimated clearly enough that she had not obtained tho property properly. Accused’s books as well had been altered in several respects. Accused did not enter a plea, and was committed to tho Supreme Court for trial.