RINGS DISAPPEAR

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 23, 27 July 1934, Page 10

RINGS DISAPPEAR

CHARGE OF THEFT

SEQUEL TO A PARTY

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

Maintaining in a cloar-eut 'statement to the police that he posted a package containing five rings and a necklace belonging to Mrs. Beryl E. Stedinan, George Alexander Low, a porter, faced a jury on a charge of theft in the Supreme Court today. The rings were stolen from the residence of Captain and Mrs. Stedinan by throe married women during a party on the night of February 23. The women had pleaded that^they were under the influence of liquor. Their story was that some time after the party they gathered the jewellery, and that Low offered to post it to Mrs. Stedman. The three women were convicted of theft in the Magistrate's Court. At the trial this morning his Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) presided, Mr. P. S. K. Macassey. appeared for the Crown, and Mr.; J. Scott defended Low. » The defence called no evidence, and the Crown Prosecutor did not address the jury. Mr. Scott asked for an acquittal. MISSING JEWELLERY. Beryl Eileen Stedman, wife of.Captain Stedman, said that on the night of February 23 last a party was held at her house. Mrs. Stedman was not at the party, but arrived home at about 10.35 p.m. when the party was on. Witness was asked to look to see if any jewellery was missing.. Sho missed only one ring at the time, but at various, times missed others. She- missed a diamond and emerald ring; a diamond and ruby hoop ring;, an old-fashioned amethyst and pearl cluster ring; a plain gold wedding ring; and a necklace. The jewellery was valued at £36 10s. Witness had received back a garnet ring which had been taken. <lt came by parcel post. Cross-examined, witness said that none of the three'women were known to her. The garnet ring produced was the first one she had mis'ied. Witness had unfortunately lost t'le paper wiping of the paw'- ti.~ r^ress was in a woma'-V writing, she thought. She received jack the garnet ring about a fortnight later. OFFER TO POST. Eileen Johnston, married woman, said that she attended tho party in the company of Mrs. Sinden and Mrs. Amalric. Witness consumed liquor and after the party found herself'in possession of some rings and a-necklace. Witness was wearing one, and each of tho, others wore one. . Mrs. Amalrie had a necklace. Two rings were found in witness's bag afterwards. The three women met on March 2 and decided to send^ the rings back. They met at witness's flat and the accused came and took part in the discussion. Ho knew the women had taken the rings, and offered to send them back. They had beeii put in a tin with a necklace. Low y was supplied with Mrs. Stedman's ad-' dress and was to send them by.registered post. Low and the company left the house at 7.30 p.m. and Low left them near the Post Office at Courtenav Place. Witness said that she met Low at the Majestic Lounge on March"6 and asked if he had sent the rings back. Lowsaid that he had posted them at Courtenay Place. Witness did not meet him again until she found the. rings had not been returned. In company with Mrs. Amalric witness called on Low, and asked^him what he had done with the rings. Low ..was told it would cause a lot of trouble if the rings were not returned. He saia tie had taken the rings home, opened the parcel, and had a look at them; they were not worth anything and the police,had nothing on him. He said he was positive he had posted them. With Mrs. Amalrie witness saw" the accused a^ain on March 18, and he said he would inquire next day at the Post Office to see why they had not been delivered. The accused failed to keep an appointment. The garnet ring produced was not one of the rings. Witness then informed tho police. A MISUNDERSTANDING. Cross-examined, witness said she was not living in Tasman Street on February 23, but at a private hotel. Witness had had liquor at, the hotel before the party and at-tho party. '_ There were, five rings, weren't there? —Yes. That, ring (pointing, to the exhibit) was a sixth. ring. . Each statement of the three women was made in the presence of the. other, and read over by the police officer, said witness. She had given an incorrect statement; there was a misunderstanding. It was not mentioned that two rings and a necklace had been found in her bag. ' Have you ever taken' steps, to correct that misunderstanding?— Yes. You say that Low came to your place on March 2? —Yes. Low was totally unknown to Amalrie and Sinden?—Yes. . Low was not the 'only man in the house?— No. There was one other. How was the jewellery wrapped up, then? —In-a pipe-tobacco tin—about/the size of that matchbox, not much bigger. Did a friend of yours—call him "W" —enter into negotiations with Captain Stedmaii for the return of the rings? —Yes. Your friend accompanied you to Courtenay Place?— Yes. Low has 'always stuck to it that he posted back the rings?— Yes. Re-examined, witness said that Mrs. Sinden*1 had done most of the talking to the detective on the first,, occasion.! NO INQUIRY BY POLICE. Mona Amalrie; married woman, said she went to the party. She corroborated Mrs. Johnston's evidence. Velma Sinden, married woman, also gave evidence on tho lines of that of the two previous witnesses. His Honour: You decided to send the rings back without any inquiry being made by the police?— Yes. Robert Craig, a mailrooni supervisor at the G.P.0., said he was on duty on March .2 from midnight. No parcels for Seatoun were brought under his notice tliat night. Very seldom did articles go astray in' the Post Office. The percentage of articles untraced was .001. Cross-examined witness admitted that in 1932 of 4832' complaints about articles gone astray in 46.4 per cent, of cases inquiries proved fruitless. Re-examined, he said that complaints received often proved to be without foundation. Detective Neil John McPhce said that he interviewed tho accused on April 19 with Detective Robinson. Tho accused admitted having received , the rings, and-made a statement saying that he had posted the rings. Cross-examined witness said Low had made tho statement quite freely and readily. He had always maintained lie had posted the parcels. The jury retired at 1 p.m. * "Not guilty" was the verdict of the jury when it returned shortly after the luncheon adjournment. "Yes, I can. quite understand the difficulty of the jury, but it is just ns well they don't know as much as you and I know," said his Honour, looking I towards Low. ' "You arc discharged. 1'