“RANSOM” FOR RING

Evening Star, Issue 22142, 24 September 1935, Page 13

“RANSOM” FOR RING

AH ASTONISHING THEFT CHARGE STORY YOUNG DRESSMAKER COMMITTED FOR . TRIAL [Per United Press Association.] AUCKLAND, September 23. In the Police Court to-day Veronica Pope, a dressmaker, aged 24, was charged with stealing on September 4 a diamond ring, valued at £SO, the property of Norine Stott, with obtainmg credit by fraud of £5, and with stealing £5, also the property of Mrs Stott._ Senior-detective Hall prosecuted. The accused, who was represented by Mr Sullivan, pleaded not guilty. Norine Stott said that on September 4 she placed her diamond ring on the sideboard at her homo. She went out, and, returning a few minutes later, discovered the ring was missing. The accused, who conducted a business a few doors from her shop and often visited her, called later in the day. On being told of the loss of the ring, she said that witness could search her if she liked. Some days later she called to see the accused, and told her she was very worried about the loss of the ring, and suggested advertising for it. The accused said; “ What about soma of those ransom stunts in America? This is where a third party comes in. If 1 were to write a letter to accompany the advertisement you could use my place as a depot for receiving the ring, and I would pay out the reward.” She suggested a reward of £lO, but witness said she could not afford it, and £5 was decided on. Next day witness, a friend, and the accused drafted a letter, mostly at the accused’s dictation, and an advertisement was inserted in a newspaper referring to this letter, which could bo picked up at the newspaper office. The letter stated it was known that the ring had been taken. A guarantee was given that _ nothing further would be done or said about the -matter if the ring were returned, and a reward of £5 was offered. The reward would be given by a totally disinterested third party who was under the impression that the money was for repairs. Whoever returned the ring would bo perfectly safe from recognition. , Continuing, witness gave evidence of conversations with the accused, which were overheard by a detective in the bathroom of witness’s house. She gave thh accused £5 for the reward. On October 12 the accused came in and said she had great news. The ring was as good as found, because the letter had been lifted from the newspaper office. She said she had not been to town, but had rung the office to inquire. Next day the accused came in saying: “Quick, quick, is this itP She was holding a ring. She was then arrested by a detective. Two clerks gave evidence that the accused visited the newspaper office on the morning of September 12 and asked for the letter, which was given to her. Detective M'Lean described overhearing at Mrs 'Stott’s house conversations with the accused about the possibility of the ring being returned. He saw her take the letter from the newspaper office, and followed her homo from there. Asked < who gave her the ring after she had been arrested, the accused said a man with a bicycle had handed it to her only two or three minutes previously. He was wearing a_ light tweed suit. She had only seen him for a few seconds. He mumbled something about repairs, and she handed him £5. Mr Sullivan said the evidence on the theft charge was exceedingly light. The accused had a complete answer to the accusations, and he would ask that her name be suppressed in the meantime. The magistrate, Mr F. K. Hunt, committed the accused to the Supremo Court for trial, bail of £SO being allowed. He refused to suppress her name.