MADAME RACHEL.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1270, 13 April 1878, Page 3

MADAME RACHEL.

It is stated in to-day’s telegrams that Madame Rachel has been sentenced to five years’ penal servitude for obtaining by false pretences jewellery to the value of £2OO. The following particulars of the preliminary examination is taken from the London “ Times” of February 15th ; At Marlborough street, yesterday, Rachel Leverson, otherwise Madame Rachel, of 153, Great Portland street, was summoned before Mr Newton for obtaining by false and fraudulent representations jewellery to the amount of £2OO from Mrs Cecilia Maria Pearce, of Ebury street. Mr George Lewis, jun., appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Blanchard Wontner for the defendant. Mr Lewis, in opening the case, said it was with considerable reluctance that the complainant came forward ; but she felt it to be her duty on public grounds to do so. The complainant wont to the defendant’s shop, was supplied with washes, and was told that the fee for “permanent treatment” was £IOOO, and that she was then employed in “finishing” a countess. The complainant, after various {mrchases and conversations, was induced to cave jewellery to the amount of £2OO in the hands of the defendant, and not having been able to get it back took out the present summons. Mr Lewis then adverted to the evidence he intended to call, and concluded by stating that the complainant did not know at any time that the defendant had praviouely been sentenced to five years’ penal servitude. Mrs Cecilio Maria Pearce said she was the wife of Mr Godfrey Pearce, stockbroker, 40, Ebury street Pimlico, was an Italian, and twenty-four years of age. Some years ago she became acquainted with the defendant by going into her shop in Duke street, Grosvenor square. The words “Arabian Perfumer to Queen” were over the door. On that occasion complainant bought some powder, and later on some violet powder. The defendant suggested that she should have some washes instead, stating that they would be as good as a powder and more harmless. Witness purchased some washes, some at one guinea, some at two guineas per bottle, and paid her about £2O. Last February the complainant went to Rome, returning at the end of May, In the meantime defendant had gone to 153, Great Portland street. The complainant went there to make purchases. The bottles of preparations purchased from the defendant had no labels on them. Each bottle lasted about a week. The defendant suggested that she should be enamelled, and then she would look at sixty as well as she did then. The complainant asked the defendant why she herself had not been enamelled. The defendant, in reply, asked her if she was aware how old she was. She said, “ No,” and the defendant said “ I am 85,” and that for enamelling her fee was 1000 fuineas. The defendant continued to supply er with bottles of Wash, and an eruption having come on her face which had never occurred before, the defendant told her that the eruption was part of the treatment—that the pores of her skin were open, and that she might be disfigured for life if she put anything to her face but what she got at that place. The defendant said she would finish the process for £SOO. The complainant told the defendant she could not afford it. The defendant then said, “ Very well. Remember, if I do not finish, you may be disfigured for life.” The complainant told the defendant she must let her face remain as it was. The defendant then offered to do it for £2OO. The complainant said she did not think it worth while, and that she did not believe in her course of treatment. The defendant mentioned several ladies whom she knew who had completed the treatment. Among these the defendant mentioned the name of a countess who had, she said, paid her 2000 guineas. The defendant then promised that if she paid her £2OO she should be exactly as the countess who had paid her 2,000 guineas was. The complainant agreed to the terms and wrote a letter to the effect that she would give her £IOO in January and £IOO in February. The complainant went to some money lenders to try to raise the £2OO, but did not succeed, as she had not her husband’s signature. She then gave up the matter entirely, and sent the defendant a letter to that effect by her maid. In the letter she stated she could pay only £SO. The defendant sent her a messHge to the effect that she would do it for £SO. She said that to raise that sum she must pledge her jewels. The defendant said she had already ladies’ jewellery of the value of £BOOO in her house, and that in the next room she had something that would astonish her. She had the jewels of a countess for the discovery of the supposed robber of which £IOOO reward had been offered. One diamond among them was as large as the top of her thumb. As the complainant was leaving a woman came, and the defendant told her that was the countess’s maid. As she was going out the complainant told the defendant she would try to bring her the £SO the next morning. The defendant told her she was in a terrible state, and must use only cold water in washing her face. This statement was alarming to her, her husband having already spoken to her about the state of her face. She had promised defendant “ not to tell her husband,” and had not done so. The defendant suggested that she might draw the money from a fund at a Bank over which she had power, Thp complainant said that would be a robbery, to' which defendant replied that she used too strong terms. The next time she went to the defendant’s she had her jewels with her ; [that was early in January. These were a diamond and pearl locket and earrings, two bracelets, a gold necklace, and two other lockets. She told the defendant she had brought the jewels to show to her, and sooner or later would bring her the money. Then she gave defendant the jewels, She believed the defendant’s statements as to the countess and the large amount of jewelry in the place. When she gave the jewels tlje defendant let her have a bath, as she said, to take away the eruption, her maid being with hpr at the tjmei She went the next day, when the defendant asked her if she' would like to have her jewels baok, aud she told hep she would. The defendant said she knew a lady who would give the complainant the money on the jewels if she wrote a letter saying she wanted it and would bring the jewels for that purpose. The complainant wrote that letter, the defendant telling her pot to name the amount, but to put £SO in figures. letter was addressed to the defendant. On' her return homo the complainant sent her maid to get her -jewels and the letter back. She had sent defendant to pay for the bath. The defendant dictated the letter she wrote. Her maid returned without the £5 and without the jewels. After writing the letter the complainant saw the defendant hand it to her servant. In consequence of what her maid said she went to the defendant the next day and asked why she had not sent back the jewels. The defendant replied she need not be in such a fright about jewels worth £SO, when she had other jewels worth thousands. She might write to the gentleman who had them in pledge, whose name she gave upon a pieoe of paper. The complainant was much astonished, as she did not know the defendant had pledged them. She wrote to the pawnbroker, Mr Sheldrick, beginning the letter “ Dear Mr Sheldrick,” at the defendant’s request. The defendant told her she had better have a receipt for the money, and she wrote in a printed book what pbo m gwis to do, ctwpkimfc after-

wards found it was not the receipt as expected, and then told the defendant she wanted the receipt for the £SO. The defendant said she would give it to her, but did not do so. On that day the complainant told her husband of what had occurred, and went to see the defendant with him at the defendant’s request. The complainant having repeated in her husband’s presence everything she had just stated, the defendant denied having dicated the letter and said she would not produce her engagement-book. The defendant added that she would be very pleased to meet the complainant in Court, and wpuld then road some letters which would incriminate her before the world in case she dared to appear. The defendant sent her a bottle of wash, which she took to Messrs Anderson and Son, Lower Belgrave street, to be analyzed. She had some more of the wash in the bottle supplied by the defendant. Mr Harold, sen,, said he was analyst to Messrs Godfrey and Co., Conduit street. He received from Messrs Anderson a bottle on the 21st. of January, He analysed the contents. The bottle contained organic matter, part of which was possibly due to the dirtiness of the bottle. The principal component part was chloride of lead. Its continual application to the skin might bo dangerous. Mr Newton here acceded to an application for an adjournment. Bail having been accepted, the defendant left the Court.