PAWNING OF JEWELS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20343, 26 August 1929, Page 14

PAWNING OF JEWELS.

INDIAN PRINCE SUED.

YOUNG DAUGHTER'S DEBTS

ACTION BY GIRL FRIEND. The Maharaja of Burdwan gave evidence as defendant at the West London County Court last month in an action in which Miss Zena Bell, of South Kensington, claimed for tlio recovery of certain jewellery. Tlio Kumari, the Maharaja's daughter, was also a witness.

Mr. Lloyd Jacob, counsel for plaintiff, said Ihat tlie case concerned an action in respect of certain articles of jewellery Which had been pawned. The matter had gone to a Divisional Court and had been remitted to the County Court for judgment in respect of two articles, a brooch and a ring, valued at £25. Horace Pool, employed by Messrs. Sutton, pawnbrokers, said that on October 29, 1927, he received from Miss Bell a collection of jewellery. Miss Bell was loaned £4O upon the articles, which were taken out of pawn by the Maharaja of Burdwan on May 30, 1928, on payment of £43 10s.

Mrs. Bertha Bell said that at present her daughter was in a nursing home, where she had undergone an operation. Witness identified a diamond ring and brooch as part of her mother's jewellery whicli had been given to her, and which she later gave to her daughter long beforo their return to England from India. Mr. Fortune (counsel for defendant): When you sent your daughter home alone from India in i 927 sho was 18 years of age. You are sure of that ?—About 18. Do you remember the a'ge_ of your daughter ?—1 am not sure of it. Judge Hargreaves: Do you not know the ago of your own daughter?—l am not sure. She is tlio youngest of four children. The Judge observed that from the papers in the case the plaintiff was bom in 1905.

Witness Breaks Down and Sobs. Mrs. 801 l broke down and sobbed. When she recovered she said that the Maharaja had been very kind to her daughter when she stayed 'with him. She added that she herself had never been in financial difficulties, and had given her daughter money when she required it. The Maharaja then went into the wit-ness-box and stated that he met Miss Bell at Calcutta in April of last year, when, with the Maharanee and his daughter, ho was leaving for London. His daughter and Miss Bell becamo friends. The latter told them that she was coming to London to live with an aunt. Witness said ho suggested that Miss Bell should stay with them until she went to her aunt. She told him she had not much money with her and, in addition to giving his daughter dancing lessons, he suggested that Miss Bell should also give him lessons, for which he would pay her. He paid her a guinea a lesson, and she stayed with them until she was asked to lettvo on the ground that a younger daughter was coming over from India and the room was wanted for her. Speaking of his discovery that his daughter's jewellery had been pawned, the Maharaja said that he noticed she was not wearing some of her jewellery, and in reply to his questions she told him that Miss Bell had pawned the articles on her own account for £lO. •. " I was extremely annoyed with my daughter until I found that she had not pawned it," said witness, " but that it. had been pawned by Miss Bell for her own ends." _ The ring mentioned he bought for his daughter in Calcutta, and he had never seen Miss Bell in the possession of a similar one. Eeplvinc to Mr. Jacob, the Maharaja said tliat he had come to Court to get justice for himself and daughter. He paid Miss Bell for the dancing lessons and for attending to miscellaneous correspondence, and he had always found her kind and courteous. He treated her as a daughter. He understood that she had £4 a week from her mother, and he had given his word to help her., " I "Was Very Angry and Annoyed."

Mr. Jacob: You are a very wealthy man ? The Maharaja: T am reputed to be. Your daughter was in debt at the time all this happened ?—She incurred a debt at a time when she was under age. Pressed about the debt, the Maharaja appealed to the Judge as to whether he should answer, and was told that he must. He then replied: " I would have given her money for her debt had she asked for it and had I approved of the debt." . Replying to further questions, the Maharaja said then when Miss Bell left his house his daughter lived with her in a flat which his daughter furnished. He was allowing his daughter £IOO a month for its upkeep. He added: —"I was angry and annoyed with my daughter at the time, but was making her an allowance substantially the same as when sho lived with me." At the time of the pawning Miss Bell's affairs and his daughter's had got mixed, and he recalled that a judgment against his daughter for £3O was settled by him. He asked Miss Bell to assist him to get his daughter's jewellery from the pawnbrokers, and ho was in possession of four articles of hers which were recovered from the pawnbrokers with his daughter's property. Ho told her she could have them on payment of £lO, and she refused to pay. Kumarl and the Pawning.

The Kumari —daughter of the Maharaja—said that she gave certain articles of jewellery to Miss Bell to pawn. She borrowed money from Miss Bell, and admitted writing to her from Nice saying that she owed debts amounting to £3OO, " which God knew how she was going to pay, as she had not a sou." When the jewellery was nawned witness handed it to Miss Bell, who took it to the pawnbroker. When she returned witness took any money Miss Bell brought back on trust. One pawnticket contained items of Miss Bell's jewellery, and when Miss Bell came back on that occasion she said she had procured £4O on the jewellery, of which £lO belonged to herself. They simply divided the money there and then. Mr. Fortune said that the case came down to this: The Maharaja, having redeemed the articles, asked for £lO back for Miss Bell's jewellory. Counsel asked the Judge to acquit tho Maharaja of any suggestion of wrongful detention of the jewellery. Tho brooch and ring, he said, were in the property of Miss Bell—that bad been shown by the Maharaja—and the cfase the judge had to consider was the detention of two articles of jewellery which were unidentified.

The Judge held that the Maharaja had admitted having the articles in his possession. He (the Judge) preferred the evidence of tho Maharaja and the Kumari to tliat of Miss Bell as to the ownership of the jewellery in dispute, and would find nominal damages of Is each for the plaintiff in respect of two unnamed articles. Ho allowed costs to tho Maharaja in respect of the defence of two articles.