PORTLAND MYSTERY RECALLED

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16416, 3 May 1921, Page 4

PORTLAND MYSTERY RECALLED

m CASE OVER POO, "MAUDE, FORGIVE ME’ ! * An echo of the Druce case, otherwise kaowu as the ” Portland Mystery,” which created -world-wide interest some years ago, was heard in the , Alagjstrace’s Court yesterday. , An orange-coloured Pomeranian dog registered under the name fit “ Golden Nugget 1 ’ was the object of contention. • in a case between Maude Robinson and i Frank Carl, a baker- The plaintiff claimed £lO 15t» damages on account - of the death of the dog. following upon ill-treatment and injury of it by defendant • Mr W. J. Hunter, who appeared for the plaint iff. said tjbafc the dog was bought for £3, and was a year and eight months old. Defendant, boarded with plaintiff and her sister. He. let the dog sleep in his room at nightsOn Easter Sunday morning the dog i could scarcely crawl out of the room. It began to vomit, and later died. The cause of death was internal haemorrhage. Defendant admitted having killed the dog, but said lie did not know why he did it-Cross-examined by Mr C. S. Thomas, plaintiff said that sh** had trained the dog not to bare at people. She used ic pay lo it, *' Now then Billy, be a good hoy “ Whv did you say that to the dog? ” asked Mr Thomas. "Oh, I’d say that to any dog. I’d say it to you. 1 * •Do you remember the Druce case?'’ asked Mr Thomas of plaintiff Mr Hunter: Oh, how is that rele_ rant? Mr Thomas: l have, advice that it is releva n t. The Magistrate: In what way? Mr Thomas: This is the lady. Sir! (to witness) What connection have you with the Druce case? Witness: I have no connection. Mr Thomas informed the Court that in the Druce case, there was an accusation that, the Duke of Portland was not the Duke. All sorts of arguments were put up and stories told, and eventually one woman got four years’ imprisonment. Another woman got off. “ Does my friend accuse witness of being one of the convicted persons? *’ asked Mr Hunter. Mr Thomas to witness: Did you give evidence of any kind in the Druce ea se ? Witness: Yes. Mr Thomas: At any time did a judge of t,h» Gourt in England make a .statement that if you had not been so young you would have been sent to the same place os your mother? Witness: No. never to mv knowledge. Mr Thomas: Did your mother give evidence ? Witness: My mother is a different person to me. Mr Hunter: Really. I think this is unfair. Mr Thomas: No. I rnntoml it is not unfair. That was a blackmailing case-' I wms never l in my life.' 1 i added witness to Mr Thomas- “My mother got four years.” Mr Thomas: You air • ipposed to be the daughter of Druro". "Witness: T couldn't swear whose daughter ! am. I am the daughter of "William Robinson. You have nothing to do with Druce? —I could not he the daughter of Druce. Could you not he the illegitimate daughter of Druce?—l was never so insu 1 ted l u my life*.!’ ’ You have made that statement? — No, I never made that statement! My father was William Robinson. "What evidence did yo i give in that case? —I decline to say. Mr Houter to witness: In what oase did you give evidence?--The jDnioe case. I can't remember what evidence I gave. Tt was so long ago. Mr Hunter: How old were you then? —About twenty-five years. And you can’t, remember?—No. it is so long ago, arid it is a. very painful matter. Plaintiff’s sister. Ethel Robinson, aaictf that defendant admitted to her having killed the dog. He flung his arms round Maude’s neck and said, Oh, Maude, forgive me!” “ Will you fell rno how you think he hurt the dog?” asked Mr Thomas. ‘‘ I asked him to his face if ho had overlain it,” said witness. Evidence was given that defendant had made inquiries regarding the purchase of .another Pomeranian dog subsequent, to ;i Gold Nugget’s” death. Mr Thomas submitted that t-h«=* dog had probably Keen injured in the street. ‘‘lt probably got through the fence,” bo said. “ and, like its kind, snapped at somebody. He probably put up his boot, and lifted the dog back to the other side of the fence.” Defendant said that he had been very fond ol the dog. He. denied having injured it. Ethel Robinson, sister to .plaintiff accused him of killing the dog, saying that, she had had ”a dream from Christ.” He replied that it had 5 probably been injured by tossing it up as they used to. The Magistrate said he felt satisfied that defendant was responsible for the. dog’s death. Tie would give judgment for plaintiff for £l2 and costs.