MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 254, 24 September 1935, Page 9

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

CHARGES AT AUCKLAND. ACCUSED TO STAND TRIAL. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, Sept. 23. In the Magistrate’s Court to-day Veronica Pope, a dressmaker, aged 24, was charged with stealing on September 4 a diamond ring valued at £oU, the property of Norine Stott; with obtaining credit by fraud of £5, anu with stealing £5, also the property of Mrs Stott. Senior-Detective Hall prosecuted. Accused, who was repiesented bv Mr Sullivan, pleaded not guilty. Norine Stott said that on Septembei 4 she placed her diamond ring on a sideboard at her homo. She went out and, returning a few minutes later, discovered the ring was missing. Accused, who conducted a business a few doors from her shop and often visited her. called later in the day. On being told, of the loss of the ring slie said witness could search her if she liked. Some days later slie called to see accused and told her she was very worried about the loss of the ring, and suggested advertising for it. . Accused said, “What about some of those ransom stunts in America? _ This is where a third party comes Hi. If 1 were to write a letter to accompany an advertisement you could use my place as a depot for receiving the ring and I would pay out the reward. She suggested a reward of £lO, but witness said slie could not afford it, and £5 was decided on. Next day witness, a friend, and accused drafted a letter, mostly at accused’s dictation. An advertisement was inserted m a newspaper referring to this letter, which <;*uld be picked up at the newspaper office. The letter stated it was known the ring had been taken; a guarantee was given that nothing further would be done or said about the matter if the ring was returned, and a reward of £5 was offered. The reward would be given by a totally disinterested third party, who was under the impression that the money was for repair's. Whoever returned the ring would be perfectly safe from recognition. Continuing, witness gave evidence of conversations with accused, winch were overheard by a detective in the bathroom of witness’s house. She gave accused £5 for the reward. On September 12 accused came in. and said she had great news. The ring was as good as found because the letter hod been lifted from the newspaper office. She said she had not been to* town but bad rung the office to inquire. The next day accused came in, saying: “Quick!' Quick! Is this it?” She was bolding the ring. She was then arrested by a detective. Two clerks gave evidence that accused visited the newspaper office on the morning of September 12 and asked for a letter, which was given to her. Detective McLean described overbearing at Mrs Stott’s bouse conversations with accused about the possibility of the ring being returned. He saw her take a letter from the newspaper office and followed her home from there. Asked who gave her the ring after she had been arrested, accused said a man with a bicycle had handed it to her only two or three minutes previously. He was wearing a light tweed suit. She had only seen him for a few seconds. He had mumbled something about repairs and she bad handed him £5. Mr Sullivan said the evidence on the theft charge was exceedingly light. Accused had a complete answer to the accusations. He would ask that her name be suppressed in the meantime. The Magistrate (Mr F. K. Hunt) committed accused to the Supreme Court for trial, bail of £SO being allowed. He refused to suppress her name.