THE CHARGE AGAINST MADAME RACHEL.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2859, 13 April 1878, Page 3

THE CHARGE AGAINST MADAME RACHEL.

(FROM THE HOME NEWS.)

Madame Rachel, the celebrated reviver of female beauty, has been charged at Marlborougb street Police Court with having obtained by fraudulent pretences jewellery of the value of £200 from Mrs Pearce. The lady, upon being examined, ■aid the defendant told her that she would he disfigured for life unless the cure of " finishing " was completed ; nnd under this impression sho parted with her property as a security for the sura she was to pay. Mr Pearce was afterwards examined, and also Mr Sheldrick, who, on behalf of Mr Attenborough, advanced to the defendant, from whom he received Mrs Fearce's jewellery, the sum of £50. After a brief hearing of the ca«e, a remand was granted, bail being required in two sureties for £750 each.

On February 22nd the prisoner was again examined before the magistrate, when Mr George Lewis said that since the last hearing an application had been made to the Home Office, and now he was instructed to prosecute on behalf of Treasury. Mr Pearce, the husband of the pjtoseeutor, identified the jewels producecby Mr Attenborough's assistant as belonging to his wife. His wife on ono occasion uanded him a bottle, which ho gate' I'to Mr Sauriders. Mr Thomas Saunders, manager to Messrs Godfrey and Coofce, chemical analysts, said that he received a bolile frbin the last witness, and gave it to Mr Senior, the analyst. Mr Harold Senior, analyst to Messrs Godfrey and Cooke, said he analysed _ the contents of the bottle which he received from the last witness. It was composed of lead compound 10 grains, claylike earth 60 grains, starch 150 grains, hydrochloric acid 15 grains, water 24j00 grains, making in all about 2635 grains, or 6 fluid ounces. In his opinion the constant application of the compound would be deleterious to the skin.

Mrs Isabella Scott, at present, residing at tbe Norfolk Hotel, Brighton, said she was maid to the Countess of Dudley, and had been so for many yeara. She had never seen the prisoner before that day; she had never been to her place of fausi ness either in Duke street, Grosvenor square, or in Great Portland street. She had never taken any jewels to her from the countess. In November, 1875, some jewels were stolen from witness at the railway station, and, a large reward was •fiered for their recovery. The countess did not use any wash or other compounds in any shape or form. Mr Lewis stated that he had received a letter which had been written by direction of Lord Dudley, in which he stigmatised the assertions made with reference to Ms wife as base scandals. Mr Wontner said that the prisoner had never stated that Lady Dudley was a client of hers. Mrs Scott before leaving the witness-box asserted most emphatically that she had never gone to the prisoner for any purpose whatever.

In cross-examination by Mr Wpntner: Mr Senior sard that chloride of lead was not very frequently used' in lotions. It was not generally used amongst chemists to his knowledge to allay inflammation. It would dissolve in water and it did not require an acid to dissolve it. Orsolina Palmieri, lady's-maid to Mrs Pearce, said she had accompanied Mrs Pearce to the house of the defendant in Great Portland street, and she did not remember the'defendant say anything about the state of Mrs Pearce's face breaking out into a rash. She and her mistress went to the defendant's, and the defendant told her that if she did not bring £200 she would be ruined for life. That was the day before the jewels were pawned. Mrs Pearce said she had not the money, and could not get it unless she pawned her jewels. The defendant told Mrs Pearce that she had some jewels, diamonds, &c., belonging to the Countess of Dudley. On One occasion Mrs Pearce took a bath, which the defendant said would remove the rash. Witness remained with Mrs' Pearce during the bath, j One day witness went with a letter to the prisoner. During one of the visits the defendant made Mrs Pearce write a letter, which she dictated, which was to be sent to her (the defendant), and, on anbthe? occasion the defendant die-, tated a letter which was to be sent to the pawnbroker's assistant. Witness took the defendant a sum of £5 in payment for the bath, and, asked for the jewels, 1 and the defendant said if Mrs Pearce brought her the money she should have the jewels. On one occasion witness put t portion of the wash on her arm and a slight rash appeared, which lasted for a few days and then disappeared;

Cross-examined by Mr Wontner: She had been to Madame Rachel's several times and taken letters, but she had never had any conversation with her. Mrs Pearce had many bottles of wash, but she did not use them. Witness took back! one bottle from the prisoner to Mrs Pewrce. The rash remained on witness's arm for a few days. She gave some of tho wash to a fellow-servant When Mrs Pearce took the bath referred to she did not put her face in the water. She went with Mrs Pearce to the prisoner's when the jewellery was taken. Two letters wfl£2 written in the presence of witness by Mrs Pearce at the dictation of the defendant, and in addition to this the prisoner made Mrs Pearce write a letter In a book, which witness signed. She would swear that she never conversed with Madame Rachel, except that she had spoken to her abont her father and mother. Witness wrote the name and address of her father and Madame Rachel had it. She never asked the prisoner to write to her father.* Since the last hearing the had not conversed about this easo with eilher Mr or Mrs Pearce. Some of the bottles were thrown away by witness and some by another servant. She went with her mistress to prisoner's place four or five times the day before she took her jewels. TbeprisonerspokeaboutLadyDudley'sjewels. Witness could not understand all the conversation between the prisoner and Mrs Pearce. The prisoner told Mrs Pearce that Lady Dudley's jewels were brought to her and that they were in her house. She could not say whether Mrs Pearcs asked Madame Rachel to pawn her jewels. Tho prisoner mentioned the names of princesses and countesses, and nearly all the principal ladies in London. Re-examined by Mr Lewis : When her fellow servant used the wash a rash aimijar to that which was on witness's arm appeared. No rash ever broke out on Mrs Pearce's face either before she used the wash or since she had ceased doing so.

While the evidence was being read over, the Earl of Dudley entered the court and took a seat on the bench. At the conclusion of the reading of the

depositions, Mr Wontner stated, in response to the magistrate, what ho had already referred to, viz., that the Countess of Dudley was not, nor had she been, a client of her'a. Ho was instructed also to say that the reference to tho jewels was not that Madame Rachel had them in her house, bat that some statement had been made to her, for what reason he did not know, that in all probability a solicitor now in prison knew something about them. ■'

The prisoner was then formally committed for trial, and Mr Newton fixed the bail—Madame Rachel in £2000, and two sureties in £1000 each.

[A. calogram states that Madame Rachel has received a sentence of five years' imprisonment.]