The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1887-01-08 00:00:00

THE DIAMOND FRAUDS,

At the Marylebone Police-court on Saturday,
Dudley Mansfield, 28, a financial agent, and Harry
Carpenter, of Portsdown-road, Kilburn, were charged
on remand with conspiring with others to obtain by
false pretences £lOO, and other sums, from Walter
Henry Moore, manager to Mr. Thompson, a pawn-
broker, of Praed-street, Paddington. Mr. Besley
prosecuted for the Pawnbrokers' Society; Mr. Lick-
fold defended Mansfield, and Mr. Webster appeared
for Carpenter. The allegation of the prosecution was
that Mansfield, assisted by Carpenter and others,
pledged some articles of jewellery set with diamonds,
and obtained large sums of money on them. After
the pledges had been completed and the money ad-
vanced, it was noticed that the diamonds had a
blackish colour about them. Mr. Moore in the day-
light washed the diamonds in spirits of wine, and
then discovered that they had been painted with a
chemical, by which they were turned from a straw
or yellow colour into a white, bright, clear colour,
thereby making them to appear of a much greater
value than they really possessed.
Inspector Morgan, X Division, said he received in-
formation about this matter in October, 1885. At the
prosecutor's shop he saw the advance note and the
fewellery. Mareld gave an address, and on wi nese
going there he was told that he had left a month
previously. Afterwards, on the sth of November, he
saw the two defendants at the Paddington Police-
station, and asked Mansfield his name and address,
to which he replied that he lived at the Crown,
Cranhourne-street. Carpenter said he lived at 142,
Portsdown-road, and was a gentleman. Mansfield
said Carpenter was a friend of his. He told them
they would have to see Mr. Moore, and they volun-
teered to go to the shop in Praed-street. On
the way Mansfield said he could not understand
what was the matter, and the witness said they had
obtained money by falsely representing that they had
given 200 guineas for certain diamonds, which had
been pledged with Moore for over .£lOO, and that the
diamonds were inferior ones, which had been painted.
Witness had found that the jewellery was at pur-
chased from Messrs. Hancock, that the first defendant
had given a false address, and that he was known to
inspector Turpin as an associate of bad characters.
Mansfield said he failed to see how it was a fraud,
and witness said it was as much a fraud
as if any one had pledged a dummy watch.
Carpenter was present at the time of the conversation.
On arriving at the shop witness saw Mr. Moore,
who said Mansfield had that day brought a lady's
hair pin and a half hoop ring set in diamonds, on
which he had asked for an advance of £lOO. Witnees
asked Moore if he would charge Mansfield, and be
replied that he would think about it. In Mansfield's
presence witness told Moore that the former had given
a false address and description, and that he was well
known to Inspector Turpin, of the C division, who
gave him a bad character. Moore said Carpenter had
offered a ring in pledge for £3O, but it was refused,.
Carpenter said he had received the article from a man
named Burrows, from whom he had had other property.
Carpenter and Mansfield,in reply to a question, said
they did not know Burrows' address. The jewellery in
question had, they said, all been received from Burrows,
When reminded that he had previously said he had
bought some of the articles at Hancock's, liensfield
denied having said so,but Moore and his assistant con-
firmed that he had. Mr. Moore still preferred to consider
the matter of giving the men into custody. The
goods were detained, and the defendants left the shop.
Witness saw the diamonds, which were bright and
clear as of the first water, and by his advice Moore
washed the ring in spirits of wine, when the stone
turned a yellow colour, and the spirits of wine a puce
colour. The man Burrows, he believed, was a man
known to him as Geils, who used to live in Petherton-
road, against whom two warrants had been issued.
Cross-examined : Inspector Turpin told witness that
he knew Mansfield AS an associate of card sharpers
and suspected persons.
Mr. li.ckfold : Did you not detain the man at the
itation?

Witne,s : No, if they had chosen to go away I could
not have prevented them.

,
Mr. Lickfold : Then what did you mean when you
said they would either have to go to the shop or be
kept at the station until Mr. Moore arrived.

Witness: Oh, that was a bit of bounce. (Laughter.)
I said that because if they had refused I should have
thought worse of them than I had before.
Mr. E. W. Streeter, of 18, Bond-street, said he had
been a valuer of precious stones for between 30 and 40
years. There were two kinds of diamonds, yellow and
white. The ring produced bore a yellow diamond
weighing from four to five carats, worth ..£5 a carat.
Had it been a white diamond it would have been worth
from £25 to £3O a carat. The diamonds in the earrings
were of similar quality, and were worth aLont £32.
Had they been white they would have been worth £2lO.
The chemical that had been used could be clearly
seen on these stones with the aid of a strong glass.
It took an experienced 'eye to detect the chemical,
which was placed in the setting. The brie:4,mo
gradually decreased. The half-hoop ring and tha
pin had been dealt with in a similar way. The first
was really worth about £35 or £4O, but was made to
appear worth about £2OO. The pin was worth £2O,
but was made to appear worth £l5O.
Mr. De Rutzen inquired how long this practice of
manipulating diamonds had been known.
Mr. Streeter replied that it was first known about
18 months or two years ago, when a Frenchman came
to England and sold between £4OOO and £soeo nt
coloured diamonds.
Mr. Da Rutzen then committed the defendants for
trlal: admitting them to bail as before.