PRINCESS'S LOST BAG.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 15123, 14 October 1912, Page 9

PRINCESS'S LOST BAG.

A CHARGE WITHDRAWN..

[FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

London-, Sept-ember 7. The discharge was ordered at Westminster Police Court.of Thomas Pritchard 47, described, as,, a clerk, of Blackfriars Road, manager of the boxing establish, ment known as "The Ring," who was accused of receiving , a dressing-bag belonging to Princess Frederick Charles of Hesse, the Kaiser's youngest sister. ■■ The Princess was travelling to the Continent, via Victoria, and Folkestone, when she missed her dressing-bag, which was stolen, it is believed, in the course of transit .from the London, Brighton, and South Coast railway station to the departure platform of the South-eastern and Chatham railway station,: Pritchard was charged with receiving the bag at Leicester Square, knowing it "to . have been* stolen. At- the last hearing a witness named Israel Abrahams deposed that on August 13 two men offered the bag to the accused in the Hotel Provence, in Leicester Square. Pritchard subsequently asked the witness to have the crown and monogram, which were the distinguishing marks, obliterated from the bag, and "it jvas in consequence of his visit to a leather-stamper near Regent-street that the witness's description was published in the papers. The witness' asked Pritchard what he intended to do, and the. latter then cut the bag up and burned it at his flat in Blackfriars Road.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson, for the South-eastern Railway Company, now. said that the company found themselves in a very difficult position. If they could have got the valet or the maid of the Princess to the Court they could have proved that these servants handed the bag over to the servants of the company. To give the company the position of prosecutors they would have to prove this. Since the last hearing they hud been in almost hourly communicatiou with the Princess by letter and telegram, endeavouring 'to persuade her, to send her servants over to this country, but. on each occasion she had merely, send a polite negative. They had tried by every means in their power to got these two people over, and he was afraid without thenpresence it would be impossible to continue the case. Therefore, under the circumstances, a? it would be impossible to prove that the bag was ever put'' into tho possession of the company, and therefore as they had no position as prosecutors, he asked tho magistrate's permission to • withdraw the summons. Counsel said that he was informed by the police that nothing was known against the defendant's, character.

The Magistrate: Do I understand tinpolice to agree with counsel that they cannot carry the case a.riy further? . The inspector in charge of the case said that the police desired to leave the matter in the hands of the magistrate. Mr. Martin O'Connor (defending) said that in justice to the prisoner it should be stated that absolutely nothing was ktiown against him, and that he had borne an irreproachable character. The defendant's answer to the charge was that, with the single exception that he was with Abrahams at the Hotel Provence, and that the bag was produced, there, the rest of Abrahams's story was absolute perjury. Mr. O'Connor then attacked the witness's character, and said that upon his testimony the magistrate was- not likely to have sent the case to a jury. The magistrate (Mr. Francis) said that the prosecution had intimated that they could carry the case no further, and there, was an end of the matter. Counsel was saying that Abrahams was a man who was not to be believed.

Mr. O'Connor: Absolutely. The Magistrate.: I express no opinion now. There is Abahams's evidence, tor what it is worth, and the conduct of this man, according to him, in tearing up the bag. The police intimated that they had strong corroboration of Abrahams's statement, and Air. St. John Hutchinson said that it should bo clearly understood that the prosecution was abandoned only because they could not get the necessary evidence. •..'■ . " The magistrate said that if at any time further evidence was obtainable the defendant could be re-arrested. At present he was discharged. The defendant then left the Court.