HID PEARLS IN HER MOUTH

Taranaki Daily News, 5 January 1935, Page 15 (Supplement)

HID PEARLS IN HER MOUTH

Baroness Tells Of Escape From Russia ACTION OVER SALE OF A necklace JJARONESS MARIE BUDBERG, who escaped in the Russian revolution with a pearl necklace in her mouth, was the plaintiff in an action before Mr Justice Macnaghten in the King’s Bench Division, London, recently. . _ The Baroness, who is the wife of Count Nicolas Budberg, who lives in Knightsbridge, S.W., claimed damages from Messrs Jerwood and Ward, jewellers, of Holborn Viaduct, E.C., for the alleged wrongful conversion of the necklace, which she valued at £6OO.

Judgment was reserved. Before the revolution, the Baroness told the Court, she and her family, who were wealthy people, lived m Petrograd. Her mother’s property was confiscated. Since her escape from Russia with the pearls in her mouth, she had lived in France, Germany, and England. In London she met another Russian, Thaddee de Wiltchinsky, a doctor of laws, who, /she understood, was the re P re ;i e £* a " tive of the Grand Duke Cyril of Russia. He offered to try to sell the necklace, and she entrusted it to him to get offers. Several were made and rejected. ; Wiltchinsky ultimately got in touch with Messrs Jerwood and Ward, who bought the necklace for £95. She was not aware of this, however, until after Wiltchinsky died in November, 1932, and she now pleaded that he had no authority whatever to sell. : ■ The price she asked for the necklace varied from time to time, according to her financial position, and, at one time, she might have sold it for £2OO. Mr Edward Jerwood, until recently a partner in the defendant firm, said that, on November 24, 1931, Dr Wiltchinsky saw him with reference to selling the Baroness’s necklace, It was then at a pawnbrokers. The doctor said he had authority to _sell, and later returned with the necklace. On November 27 Messrs Jerwood - and Ward bought it for £95, which, was paid to Wiltchmsky. The sam day they sold it for £llO, and, a year ago, were able to get it back, as it had not been resold meanwhile. Mr Macaskie, for defendants, argued that Wiltchinsky was the mercantile agent of the Baroness and therefore in a position to sell tne necklace. Mr H. J. Wallington, for the Baroness, contended that the evidence and correspondence showed that WUtchinsky was authorised only to get offers for the necklace, to be submitted to the Baroness. He was not authorised to sell it.