The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-14 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Westminster, before Mr.
--- - •

Justice Hill and Common Juries.)
This was the first day of the after term sittings.

HARVEY V. SAVAGE.
This was an action for the unlawful conversion
of a diamond ring, valued at £l,OOO, the property
l
iolof
epu al
uai nidntdti
eff.:tson The, pro Qpdeer(ft)e.yn:daannat dMr.Ge dr i
flit h
tai twwe
raes,
Mr.
counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant Petersdorfl
and Mr. Honeyman were counsel for the defendant.
Mr. Huddleston, in stating the case to the jury,
said the plaintiff is a chemist and druggist, carry-
ing on business at 23, Leicester-square, and he
sought to recover, on the part of a lady named
Minnie Holmes and himself, a valuable diamond
ring which Minnie Holmes had pawned with
Messrs. Attenborough, the pawn ticket of which
the plaintiff had purchased of her. The question
was whether the ring in question had been given
to Minnie Holmes under the following circum-
stances :—The plaintiff is the nephew of a distin-
guished nobleman, but what he had been doing
during the course of his life, except travelling
abroad, he (the learned counsel) scarcely knew.
The defendant was possessed of considerable pro-
perty, and had cohabited with Minnie Holmes for
some years. It would appear that in the early part
of this year Minnie Holmes was staying in Paris
with the defendant, when a separation took place.
She came to England, and being in want of money
she pawned the ring for £lO. Subsequently she
wished to raise more money, and she applied to
the plaintiff, who advanced her money on the pawn
ticket, and when he went to redeem it, he was met
with the suggestion that the ring had been stolen
from the defendant. Upon that he brought his
action against Mr. Attenborough, and on an appli-
cation to a judge at chambers, Mr. Savage was sub-
stituted for Mr.Attenborough as the defendant, and
the question the jury would have to decide was,
whether or not the ring was given by the defendant
to Minnie Holmes. The connexion between the
defendant and Minnie Holmes was of peculiar
character, and had lasted about ten years. She had
been a professed cook in the family of the defen-
dant's uncle, where he became enamoured of her,
and seduced her, and after that she went to live
with him. The defendant appeared to be very fond
of her, though at times, from excitement, he acted
rather cruelly towards her, and on one occasion he
severely wounded her in the wrist. In March last
they were residing in Paris. He had illused her
very much, and she had left him, at which he ap-
peared to be very much annoyed. He discovered
that she had gone to the Cafe de Globe, she being
acquainted with the female who kept it. He went
there, and as he anticipated, found Minnie there.
Minnie had for ten years passed as his wife, and was
known everywhere as Madame Savage. He begged
and implored her to return and live with him, pro-
mising to amend his conduct towards her. He
professed the most ardent love and affection for her,
and !having on his finger this most valuable and
handsome ring, he took it off, and in addition to
his other protestations, said " I'll give you this.
You look much better in diamonds than I do. Now
come, forgive all that is past." She returned home
with him, and at the end of two days ho repeated
his violent conduct towards her, upon which she
left him and came to England, and being in want
of money she went :to :Messrs. Lambert and Raw-
lings, jewellers, Conduit-street, who had sold the
ring for £l,OOO to Mr. Savage, with the view of
selling it, informing them that she had had it from
Mr. Savage,the defendant. They were disinclined to
purchase it, and recommended her to Messrs. At-
tenborough, of Piccadilly, who would only ad-
vance a temporary loan of £lO, after having first
communicated with Messrs. Lambert and Rawlings.
Messrs. Attenborough afterwards communicated
with the defendant, who replied that the ring had
been stolen, and in consequence they declined to
part with it. Under these circumstances the action
had been brought. Since the action had been
brought the defendant had found out Minnie
Holmes, and had slept with her on several occa-
sions, and upon one occasion the defendant, actuated
by one of those extraordinary fits of eccentricity to
which he was addicted, gave her in charge for steal-
ing a ruby ring. She was taken from the coffee-
house where they were staying, in the middle of
the night, to the police-station. The charge wes
made by the defendant, and after hearing the cir-
cumstances the inspector refused to detain her. On
that the defendant slid, " I give her in charge for
stealing the diamond ring" (the ring in question).
The inspector investigated the charge, and Minnie
said the defendant had given her the ring in Paris,
and on the inspector asking the meaning of it the
defendant said, " Well, I believe I did give her the
ring." The consequence was that the inspector
declined to take her in custody: Minnie was allowed
to go at large. It was under these circumstances
that the present action was brought, and he hoped
the jury would protect this young woman by re-
turning a verdict in her favour.
The learned counsel having addressed the jury
for their respective clients,
The learned judge summed up.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
£l,OOO, to be reduced to the nominal amount of his
claim.