MISSING PEARLS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 33, 9 February 1939, Page 10

MISSING PEARLS

A THEFT CHARGE YOUNG GIRL ACQUITTED (By Telegraph—Press Association.) * AUCKLAND, February 8. The disappearance of a string of pearls valued at £265 was investigated in the Supreme Court before Mr; Justice Fair and a jury, when a young woman, Elizabeth Ellen Goodhue, was charged with the theft of a necklace, the~property of Lady Mary Isabel Hay Allen. The accused was alternatively charged with receiving the pearls. She was found not guilty. Mr. V. R. -Meredith conducted the case for the Crown and Mr. Henry appeared for' the "accused, who pleaded riot, guilty. Lady Allen, in . evidence, said she entered hospital on July 23. She was wearing a string of genuine pearls and another of cultured pearls. They were placed in a drawer in the dressingtable in her room. During her stay in the hospital she did not have occasion to look for the pearls. She had the cultured ones when she came out, but the others could not be found. Albert Laurence Bailey, tram conductor, said he remembered an occasion when the accused visited his home in Epsom. His mother and sister were living with him at the time. He noticed the accused was wearing pearls round her neck. The string broke and she "got a bit annoyed" and threw ■them in the fire. He picked a few up j and put them on the mantelpiece. He did not know what happened to them after that; Deteptive Finlay said that the accused, in a statement, said that one afternoon when Lady Allen was out on the balcony, she went into her room to arrange some flowers and saw a string of pearls oh the dressing-table. The accused said that, as she was going to a dance that night, she took the pearls and wore them. She did not know that they were real pearls and thought that they were artificial beads. Mr. Henry said the case was in an exceedingly small compass. The accused would give an explanation of the happening that would show that she had no criminal intent. That was the crux of the whole matter. ACCUSED'S EVIDENCE. The accused, in evidence, said she was 19 years old. 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 ;and could riot return them, and that night she went to Bailey's place. She had never made a statement that she thought the pearls were /aluable. When the string broke she got annoyed and threw them into the fire. She did not retain any of the pearls .and had ,no intention of keeping them for, herself. She thought the value of the pearls would be about 2s 6d and no more. Addressing the jury, Mr. Henry said there had been no intent of stealing the pearls. It had been suggested that the accused should have known the difference bet wees 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 rearls openly to the 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 blameless. Mr. - Meredith said the. average girl had some idea of the value of jewellery. The witness Bailey had said that it was in September, some time after the accused left the hospital, that he saw her with the string of pearls. , His Honour said it-was immaterial to the issue whether the girl knew the value of the pearls, and her real defence was that she did not intend to keep them but only to ; borrow them. The throwing of the pearls into a fire disclosed a definite intention to treat them as her own and to deprive the owner of them permanently. After a comparatively short retirement the jury returned with a verdict of not guilty and the accused was discharged. .__^_^____' . ■•