DUKE’S DAUGHTER’S JEWELS

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 May 1940, Page 10

DUKE’S DAUGHTER’S JEWELS

“MISCHIEF” CHARGE DISMISSED LONDON, March 15. Lady Margaret Drummond-Hay, daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Hamilton accused on a “public mischief” summons of falsely stating that jewellery worth £196 had been stolen, was discharged at Tisbury, Wilts, yesterday. After a 10-minute retirement the magistrates announced their decision that the case should not 'go for trial, j Though considerable ' inconvenience was caused to the police, they considered that this was due to irresponsibility rather than malice aforethought. I Lady Margaret, who lives at Dennis Farm House, Tisbury, recently appeared as Prince Charming in the amateur pantomime “Heil Cinderella,” in Lon ; don and at military camps on Salisbury Plain. She was accompanied in court by her husband, Mr. J. R. Drum-mond-Hay, who was in uniform as a 2nd Lieut, in the Army, and her mother, who knitted during the hearing of the case. Mr. W. Ireland, prosecuting, said Lady Margaret had made a claim on the Royal Insurance Co. He would-ask for her committal on a charge of attempting to obtain a certain sum. • Mr. H. G. Garland, defending, said this could only arise if the evidence disclosed it. Mr. Ireland said that Lady Margaret reported in May that her groom, Harry Hart, was missing, and later that jewellery was missing. Her nursery maid, Brenda Margaret Fitchett, afterwards showed a brooch to the police which she had found on a bedroom floor. ■

£1,200 CLAIM WITHDRAWN On June 25 the police learned that Lady Margaret had returned from j London with jewel cases, which contained practically all the jewellery reported missing. Brenda Margaret Fitchett gave evidence that when she was unpacking Lady Margaret’s cases on her return from London on June 25 she found | certain jewellery and told a constable. I Mr. Frank Beaumont Price, of Price I and Gibbs, a London firm of assessors, I said the claim entered by Lady Mar- I garet for the lost jewellery totalled I £1,222/17/-. The claim was withdrawn, | Lady Margaret; having written that I some of the jewellery had been found. I Mr. Garland said a maid at the Lon- I don house of Lady Margaret’s mother | placed the jewellery in a place of safe- I ty in March and packed it in Larjy I Margaret’s trunk in June. ' I Lady Margaret, giving evidence sup- I porting this statement, said when she B gave details of the missing jewellery B to the police she had no idea that it fl was then in London. i P I Asked about her £1,200 claim, Lady! “ Margaret said some of the property was I insured for a good deal more. Her pearls, for example, had depreciated 70 per cent. The jewellery in the case > was worth about £l9O. During the hearing Mr. C. J. Arrow, - solicitor, on behalf of Lady (Grace I Marguerite) Drummond-Hay, said there had been confusion between his client who was a well-known traveller, journalist and lecturer, and the de- 1 * fendant. ' *