THE PEARL MYSTERY.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1869, 10 February 1892, Page 5

THE PEARL MYSTERY.

(From the Dunedin * Evening Star's ' London

Correspondent. )

London, December 21.

The great pearl mystery, which is at present attracting such a large share of public attention, seems likely, at the time of writing, to have a more remarkable finale than any shilling shocker. Towards the end of last week popular interest began to flag somewhat, most intelligent thinkers having come to the conclusion that Mrß Osborne's (Miss Elliott's) alibi for the all-important 19th of February would not do, and that there was no mystery at all about the case, save the mystery of the lady's surprising assurance in brazening the matter out. Then, however, Major Hargreave (the husband of the lady whose jewels were stolen) went into the box, and committed himself so egregiously in cross-examination as to once again upset one's entire conclusions.

Miss Elliott's (Mrs Osborne's) position is to-day as follows : — On the morning after she returned from Torquay the jewels stolen from Mrs Hargreave were Bold to Spink in the city, between twelve and one, for L 55 0; and four absolutely independent witnesses swear the vendor was Miss Elliott. The lady, by way of reply, proves that Bhe was at Humphreys's, in South Kensington, about twelve, and at Madame Poucerot's, close by, between 1.30 and two. For the intervening time she cannot account, save by saying she was " walking about." No one, unfortunately, saw her just at the time she is alleged to have been in the city. Miss Elliott, to put it shortly, has an hour and a-half unaccounted for, But, say her defenders, even so, the shortest time the journey to Spink's and back from South Kensington could be accomplished in is an hour and three-quarters. The alibi for February 23 (the day the thief returned to Spink to get the cheque for L 550 altered, and upon which she cashed it) is far more satisfactory. On that day Miss Elliott's friend, sister, and servants swear she was ill, and never left the house. To this the other side retort "she slipped out and got back unnoticed. "You can produce no one who saw her at home during the hours she was, as a fact, in the city."

The theory of Mrs Oaborne's friends is that Major Hargreave took the jewels and gave them to an accomplice, who deliberately made up as Miss Elliott, and sold them at a time when it could be shown the Major was at Aix-la-Chapelle bent on an extraordinary mid - winter " cure." In crossexamination the Major let out that he was the first person suspected of the theft by nearly everybody. It also transpired that it was he suggested Mies Elliott as the culprit. The Major's knowledge of the modus operandi of his wife's secret drawer was very mixed and hazy. Asked to open the bureau in Court, he wa3 unable to do so. He stated, however, he believed the drawer was unlocked when the jewels were stolen. " Hoio do you know that?" thundered Sir Charles Russell. Despite serious warnings both from counsel and the judge, the witness could not or would not say why he thought so.

The Major made a verystupid witness, and Sir Charles seemed to suspect the stupidity was assumed. Finally a juror sprang upon him this question : "Do you, Major Hargreave, know anything of a woman named Alice Price?" The Major hummed and hawed, stammered, appeared to reflect, and then said " No."

The corrobative evidence in support of Miss Elliott's alibi was not very strong. Her servants' memories proved too good altogether. They recollected their mistress's every movement on the 19th and 23rd, but could not say what she did on the 20th and 24th, or indeed on any other day. The shopkeeper, Humphreys, was more satisfactory. He remembered the 19th because it was his birthday, and he came late to business, Miss Elliott was waiting for him. He knew it must then have been after eleven, and the lady stopped from a quarter to half an hour, or possibly even three-quarters of an hour. The assistant at Madame Poucerot's shop (which is only a few paces away), fixes the time of Miss Elliott's visit as between 1.30 and two.

The Spinks are most positive the thief was Miss Elliott, and no " make up." Mr Spink says he saw the prisoner on two occasions for more than fifteen minutes without a veil. Both times he was suspicious. On February 19 he drew his brother's attention to his visitor, and on the 23rd requested two assistants to take careful note of her. The bank clerks, who cashed Spink's cheque, felt curious, too, concerning a lady who wanted 550 sovereigns in gold, and it made them look at her longer than they otherwise would. December 24. Had the jury trying the Hargreaves case been asked on Friday evening last to say which of the two witnesses, Mrs OBborne or Major Hargreave, they believed (judging from the demeanor of both in the box) to be the culprit, the chances are the majority would have decided against the latter. Whereas Mrs Osborne was cool, collected, and apparently quite frank during the many hours' cross-examination, she must (as we now know) have been enduring hideous anxiety and mental torture, the Major was stammering, confused, uneasy — the very picture of detected guilt. As I have said earlier, the man's demeanor in Sir U. Russell's hands was so compromising that even intelligent persons who had shaken their heads over the unsatisfactory character of the plaintiff's alibi began to doubt. When the Court rose on Friday it was arranged that the trial should be adjourned over Monday, in order to permit counsel on both sides to inquire into an important letter received by the judge. The public inferred this communication to have some reference to the " Alice Price" about whom a juryman had questioned Major Hargreave, and when Tuesday morning came popular expectation was on tiptoe. The day happened to be very foggy and the Court dark, I so that Sir Charles Russell had risen to speak before the reporters noticed that the Osbornes and Mrß Geach were not in their accustomed seats. The Hargreaves, on the contrary, arrived early, backed up by several friends ; and the look of anxiety very noticeable in Mr Hargreave's face last week had completely disappeared. THE DENOUEMENT. Not since Pigott failed to put in an appearance at the Parnell Commission on the eventful day of the exposure of the famous letters (remarks the • Telegraph ') has such a sensational incident occupied' the attention of the High Court as that which was enacted yesterday morning in the Queen's Bench Division. ... In the midst of the buzz of animated conversation which the absence of Captain and Mrs Osborne evoked, there was a hush, and in absolute silence Sir Charles Russell walked into Court, followed by Mr St. John Wontner, the plaintiff's solicitor. The learned Queen's Counsel took no pains to conceal the nature of the task that had been thrust upon him. His expression was that of a man who had a painful duty .to discharge. A few seconds later "Silence" was demanded, and Mr Justice Denman Boated himself on the bench, having the historic cabinet with its ingenious secret drawers still by his side. The silence was almost oppressive in its solemnity. Even lawyers arc sometimes affected by excitement, and yesterday morning the associate omitted to utter his daily formula " Osborne v. Hargreave and another," It was felt to

be actually a relief when Sir Charles Russell rose, Mr Mathews and Mr Coward standing up at the same time. In a voice that was choked with undisguised emotion he explained that since Saturday facts had come to the knowledge of himself and his learned friends that rendered it impossible for them any longer to act as Mrs Osborne's counsel. In retiring from the oase they were acting not only with the authority, but " under the imperative instructions "of Captain Osborne, Having unequivocally withdrawn all imputations against Major and Mrs Hargreave, and " against a third person who is not a party to the case" (meaning thereby Mr Englehart) — also at the express wish of Captain Oaborne — Sir Charles made an affecting allusion to the husband who "throughout the whole of these transactions has acted as a thoroughly honorable and chivalrous gentleman," In Bpite of the sense of awe which kept all the spectators spellbound, and the evident emotion under which the learned gentleman was speaking, this sentiment could not be allowed to pass uncorroborated by the gallery, and a murmur of applause arose out of sheer sympathy with the gallant officer. In conclusion, Sir Charles said he was prepared to consent to a veidict being entered for the defendants,

The Solicitor-General, on the other side, shared hiß learned friend's appreciation of the painfulness of this unexpected denouement, and accepted Sir Charles's withdrawal of suggestions and innuendoes. But he felt it his duty to Major and Mrs Hargreave to explain what had actually occurred — how a firm in Conduit 3treet had been requested by a lady to change L 550 in gold into notes, how they had referred her to a bank in St. James's square, where her request was complied with, and how one of these very notes had been traced to an upholsterer, bearing the fatal endorsement of Miss Elliott. The learned judge concurred in the j wisdom of the step that had been taken, and intimated that after what had happened on Saturday he thought that there could be no other termination to this unhappy suit. With a well-deserved compliment to the counsel who had so " nobly " advocated the causes of their respective clients, Mr Justice Denman gave judgment for the defendants, thereby performing his last judicial act until the next sittings. Although the curtain had now fallen on this vivid and sensational drama the public were reluctant to leave the Court. Small crowds gathered within and without discussing its remarkable development and its unexpected termination. Women had wiped their eyes upon hearing that Mrs Osborne, who had made so favorable an impression upon all who had seen her and heard her evidence, had been practically — although not technically — found guilty of theft from the house of her hostess, and professional men familiar with harrowing stories of cruelty and crime confessed themselves "thoroughly upset" by what had taken place. Great sympathy was expressed with Mrs Osborne's unfortunate husband, and it was generally conceded that Major and Mrs Hargreave and Mr Englehart had been very unjustifiably made the victims of one of the most astounding crimes of modern times. The proceedings lasted only twenty minutes, but the memory of them will not easily fade from the minds of all who witnessed them. REMARKS. So the great pearl mystery turns out, after all, to be no mystery at all, but simply the brazen, shameless larceny it appeared on the surface. Had the fatal discovery of Monday last not been made at all, the chances are the result of the trial would nevertheless, have been exactly the same. Even on Friday the plaintiff's case seemed weak ; but what do you suppose it would have looked like after the identification evidence had been given ? Messrs Spink state that they were ready to put no fewer than seven witnesses into the box to swear to the lady. Suspicious from the moment they discovered she had given a false name and address, he {Mr Spink, sen.) instructed hio employe's to mark her well, and their attentions were redoubled when " Mrs Price " came back to have her cheque altered. The favorable impression which Mrs Osborne made on most people in Court during her long examination was not shared by the judge. He intimated that (as the Solicitor-General said in his opening) none of the evidence she had been able to bring proved her alibis ; rather, indeed, was it consistent with her guilt. Thsre were moments when Sir E. Clarke, in his search for a clue, got very "warm." One of them came when he asked a question, which showed Miss Elliott might have learnt from her sister, Mrs Geach (or from that lady's husband), that Spinks' were in the habit of buying valuables over the counter. Another when he showed that both the mysterious thief and Miss Elliott knew of the existence of a Dr Radcliffe Hall. The supremely agonising moment, however, for the guilty witness must have arrived when the Solicitor-General pressed Miss Elliott to say whether she had changed any large sum from gold into notes lately. " Does he know, or is it a fluke ?" must have flashed through her mind before she answered calmly "Certainly not." Of what hard metal in heart as in conscience must not this woman be composed. She had not only to hoodwink a lot of relations, tradesmen, and lawyers ; she had to deceive the man who loved her, and who was at the same time one of the most generous and chivalrous of his kind. A single moment of fear might have made her pause before the others. A single moment of womanly feeling would have made her pause before him. Miss Elliott cannot surely have loved Captain Osborne very much, or she would never have.married him till she was safe. Another fact which hardens one's heart against this criminal heroine is the remembrance of the discreditable reflections she insidiously cast on the manage of the couple she had just treacherously robbed. It did not suffice to imply the poor muddled major was a thief ; the girl must also cast him for the mean and contemptible role of mari complaisant. For the latter charge she had, I see it said, no more justification than for the former. It was a malevolent falsehood, deliberately calculated to prejudice the public and the ! jury. THE STORY SUMMARISED. The plaintiff at the time this action for slander arose was Miss Ethel Elliott, sister of Mr Hugh Elliott, a well known barrister. It was mentioned more than once by the plaintiff in the course of the case that Sir Henry James was her godfather, the obvious suggestion being that a lady so well connected could not be guilty of the vulgar felony alleged. Mrs Hargreave is the plaintiffs second cousin, and on February 9 plaintiff visited the Hargreaves at Torquay, remaining till the ISth. Mrs Hargreave had a set of valuable pearls, which she kept in a secret drawer. The last occasion on which Major Hargreave saw the pearls waß on the 3rd of February, and he left for Aix-la-Chapelle on the 4th. The last time Mrs Hargreave saw them was on the 4th— the day Major Hargreave left for Aix-la-Chapelle, and this coincidence unfortunately suggested a somewhat severe line of crosß-examination in regard to the last-named witness. Plaintiffs evidence, summarised, was that Mrs Hargreave, on. the 10th of February, opened an old drawetf or escritoire, and also opened a secret drawer, remarking "That is the place where I keep my diamonds," and having shown plaintiff a brooch, she closed the drawer with the further remark "My things are quite safe. There are only five people who know of this drawer — myself, yourself, my husband, Mr Englehart, and the cabinetmaker." The

missing pearls, according to plaintiffs statement were not exhibited on this occasion — only a brooch and the receptacle alleged to contain the pearls. Plaintiff concluded her visit to Torquay on the 18tb, and on the 21st she received a letter from Mrs Hargreave announcing the loss of the pearls. A few days later plaintiff received a second letter from Mrs flargreave, in the course of which it was suggested that no ordinary burglar could have taken the jewels. To this letter plaintiff replied in sympathetic terms. Nothing further of importance occurred until the 9th of March, when plaintiff and her sisters were engaged in sending out invitations to attend the marriage of the former with Captain Osborne. This interesting occupation was interrupted by plaintiff's brother, who conveyed the startling intelligence that she had been accused of stealing the jewels. It had meanwhile been ascertained that on the 19fch of February, the day after plaintiff left Torquay, a fashionably-dressed young lady had called on Messrs Spink, of Gracechurch street, and in the name of Miss A. Price, 14 Hyde Park Gardens, had sold them two of the missing pearls for L 550. Plaintiff, along with her brother and sisters, at once confronted Mr Spink, who indicated his firm belief that plaintiff was the lady who had sold him the pearls. She was highly indignant, but an assistant confirmed his master's impression. The bank clerk who had cashed the cheque was less positive in his identification, but his impression coincided with the positive conviction of Mr Spink and his assistant. Under the severest fire of cross-examination by the SolicitorGeneral, however, the plaintiff adhered to her protest of innocence, and in support of an alibi declared that until she visited Messrs Spink in company with her brothers and sisters she had never in her life been nearer the City than the Temple, where her brother had chambers. What the issue of the trial might have been but for the communication received by the judge on Saturday is a moot point. It seemed like a case of mistaken identity. The communication, it now transpires, was from Messrs Benjamin, a firm of clothiers, who remembered on the 19th inst. a strange lady calling on them to make the unusual request that notes should be given for L 550 in gold. Not having notes for such an amount within reach, they referred the lady to their bankers. The inquiries based upon this clue have led to the identification of the lady as the plaintiff. Among the notes she received were seven of LSO each, and one of these, bearing the plaintiff's signature, was paid by her to Messrs Maple in March. It is a distressing story. Her courage in instituting an action for slander, with the knowledge of her guilt pricking her conscience all the time ; the consistency of her evidence even under the sharp fire of cross-examination — these and other features of her conduct prove her to be a woman of no common mould. Her deluded but highminded husband is deserving of the aincerest sympathy. He evinced a galfantry and heroism unsurpassed in the annals of domestic chivalry by marrying a lady while she was lying under such a dreadful charge. Yesterday's cablegrams state that Mrs Osborne is to be prosecuted for the theft of the pearls.