HALL V. NATHAN.

Globe, Volume II, Issue 135, 5 November 1874, Page 2

HALL V. NATHAN.

Ta the Editor of the Glebe. [We have received the following epistle from Mr H. E. Nathan relative to this case, which we publish as we have received it. We also give publicity to Dr Carr’s letter on the same subject.—Ed. Globe.] Sir, —as you choose to made merry at my expense, and in so doing, atignatise me in your issue of the 29th of August last, in your ‘ Jottings by Cringle.’ I should advise the writer of same, in future, not to write from hearsay, or from what he may pick up at a public-house bars, for had he been present when the case Hall v Nathan was heard at the R. M. Court in August last, he would of been convinced as all those present where, which was the victim or he must be very shallow-pated indeed. I allude to ‘Jotting by Cringle ’ in your issue of tbe above date, where in he states where they diamond or where they glass or was the pot calling kettle black, 1 will think about it. And for his and the information of those who may not no me, will you kindly publish the enclose letter I have received from Doctor Carr, and oblidge one who as been ingered by your stigmatising publication. H. E. NATHAN, Watchmaker, Colombo street, Christchurch. Christchurch, November 3rd, 1874. Nathan, Esq., Christchurch. Sir, —l am interested in the case of Hall v Nathan, heard by C. C. Bowen, Esq., R. M. In that part only, where Hall said he did not show the stones to Dr Carr, 1 beg to relate to you the following circumstance, and to express my sincere regret that I was not in Christchurch at the time of the trial, when you would have been welcome to my evidence. I had occasion to be in Hall’s shop when his attention was directed to a diamond ring on my finger, and just bought at Peterson’s the day previous ; lie desired to examine it, inquired the value and weight of the gem, and said that he had some “ splendid brilliants ” at home. I desired to see

them, in a few minutes they were brought for my inspection, and at once I discerned the brilliants to be three pieces of glass fashioned after the manner of diamonds. I told him (Hall) they were common glass, and expressed my disappointment; he said I was a “good judge,” that plenty who had seen them took them for real diamonds. He also said that he “ could get plenty of them.” I may also add that Hall took them from out of his vest pocket; they were loose and greasy looking, so that I concluded that they were in his pocket when he pretended he had to go to his room for them. I am prepared to affirm on my oath, that what I have just written is true. The size of the sham gems would, I think, be equal to three carats each. It occurred to me at the time, that if Hall was really the Eossessor of valuable gems, he would not ave sought to borrow from me the sum of £l2 10s. I am satisfied that the spurious gems and those pretended diamonds were the same. You are at liberty to make any use of this letter you may think proper. I am, yours truly, T. GUTHRIE CARR. Hornsey Villa, Durham street North.