THE VALUE OF A NECKLACE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7731, 15 June 1903, Page 2

THE VALUE OF A NECKLACE.

LADY'S UNSUCCESSFUL ACTION AGAINST PAWN-

BROKERS.

An episode in the history of a pearl necklace engaged the attention of Mr Justice Darling in the London Law Courts recently, when a lady named 1 Mrs Arthur, brpught «n action to recover from Messrs Melhuish, pownbrokers, of Notting Hill Gate 4 the sum of £500, the amount of a cheque, payment of which had been stopped by 'the defendants.

Mrs Arthur's story was to the effect that on March 4 she took a pearl necklace to the defendants' establishment and asked for a- loan of £800 -upon it. The manager stated that he could not at that time get at his scales to weigh the pearls properly, ibut lie offered 'her a. cheque for £500, .which she accepted. Messrs Melhuish did not endorse their manager's action, and stopped the cheque. They hadl offered to return tho pearls, but Mrs Arthur would not have them.

Mr Carrington, counsel for the defendants, explained that the pearls were not worth £500.

Mr Justice Darling : Oh, that makes you so anxious to give them up.-

Mr Carrington : Certainly, and it makes the plaintiff anxious not to have" them. Counsel asked Mrs Arthur if she had pledged a, wedding ring which had nofc been redeemed, and she replied that she had.

You pledged a second wedding ring? — No; it's not mine.

Mr Justice Darling: People as a rule have only one wedding ring. Mr Carrington : But I have three here ! Mr Justice Darling : Ido not know the habits of bigamists, • but ordinary people have only one. /- Mr Macmtyre, for ths plaintiff «ud that if the firm could repudiate the action .of, their agent it was a' case for them of "heads we win, tails you lose." Mr Justice Darling : Many agents have their actions repudiated by their principals if thing« do not turn out as well as expected. Ib is the sort of thing which'happens occasionally to an Ambassador. His country may disavow him. That is /thoroughly understood by Ambassadors. They all act with a rope round their necks. Eventually, judgment was given for the defendants on the ground that the manager was jt authorised to offer the cheque,