PEARL NECKLACE CASE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 34, 10 February 1939, Page 3

PEARL NECKLACE CASE

YOUNG WOMAN CHARGED WITH THEFT ACQUITTED BY JURY [ Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, Feb. 8. The disappearance of a string of pearls valued at £265 was investigated at the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Fair and a jury when a young woman, Elizabeth Ellen Goodhue, was charged with the theft of a necklace, the property of Lady Mary Isabel Hay Allen. Accused was alternatively charged with receiving the pearls. Mr. V. R. Meredith conducted the case for the Crown and Mr. Henry appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Lady Allen in evidence said she entered hospital on July 23 last and the pearls were missed from a drawer in her room.

Accused in evidence said that she was 19 years of age and as she was going to a dance she took the pearls to wear with a low-necked dress. She intended to put them back the next day. But the next day she was not on” duty and could not return them and that night she went to a friend’s place. She had never made a statement that she thought the pearls were valuable. When the string broke she got annoyed and threw them into the fire. She did not retain any of the pearls and had no intention of keeping them for herself. She thought the value of the pearls would be about 2s 6d and no more.

Addressing the jury, Mr. Henry said there had been no intent of stealing the pearls. It had been suggested that accused should have known the difference between imitation and real pearls but it was easy to make a mistake. The question was whether she had a criminal intention. At the particular time she had worn the pearls openly to a dance and but for an unfortunate happening would have put them back. Accused had not had the guidance of a father for the last five years, but her life had been blameless. Mr. Meredith said that ’the average girl had some idea of the value of jewellery.

His Honour said that it was immaterial to the issue whether or not the girl knew the value of the pearls and her real defence was that she did not intend to keep them but only to borrow them. The throwing of the pearls into the fire disclosed a definite intention to treat them as her own and deprive the owner permanently. After a comparatively short retirement the jury returned a verdict of not guilty and accused was discharged.