The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY7EVENING, DECEMBER 3, 1859

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Lec, 2.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

;Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before
Lord Chief Justice Erie and a Special Jury.)
BALLS V. ARCHER AND WIFE.

Mr. Sergeant Parry and Mr. Powell were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Hud-
dleston, and Mr. Laxton for the defendants.
This was an action of trover to recover a valuable
diamond ring under very remarkable circumstances.
The plaintiff is an omnibus conductor, and accord-
ing to the statement of his counsel, had received a
legacy of £BO, and besides had some other money
of own, and had invested it in the purchase of a
diamond ring, for which he gave £125, being in-
duced to purchase by a friend, Mr. Hallam, a dia-
mond merchant, on the representation that diamonds
were becoming of greater value every day. Mrs.
Archer, the wife of the defendant, resides at Kil-
dare-terrace, Bayswater, aud rode in the omnibus
of which plaintiff was the conductor to Whitchapel,
by, which means an intimacy originated between
them. The plaintiff alleged that Mrs. Archer re-
presented herself to be a widow, and while visiting
at Kildare-terrace, in the anticipation of forming a
marriage connexion with her, he lent her the
ring to take down to Ramsgate to show to some
friends she said she had there who were judges of
diamonds. Finding, from inquiries, that Mrs.
Archer was a married woman, the plaintiff asked
her for the return of the ring, and she said she would
return it in a few days, but did net. The plaidtiff
then learned that his ring had been pawned, and then
asked her for the duplicate, if she could not return
the ring, and ultimately the ticket was given to
him. Mrs. Archer's version was that the plaintiff
originated the intimacy by talking about the wea-
ther while she was riding in the omnibus, and when
she got out she asked him to call a cab for her,
which he did, and he then asked her if she would
return to Bayswater by his omnibus in the evening,
which she did, and that he then followed her home
to her house, and she let him in ; that he visited
there on subsequent occasions without any invita-
tion, that he was let in, when-improper intimacy
took place, that he put the ring on her finger, say-
ing it looked better than on his, and told her to
keep it for his sake ; and that he knew she was a
married woman. The ring was pledged and re-
deemed by her several times, aud ultimately for
£6O before the duplicate was handed to the plain-
tiff. This action was brought in October last, and
Mr. Archer paid into court £69 on the 12th Nov.
as sufficient compensation for any damages the
plaintiff could have sustained. The plaintiff's attor-
ney, Mr. Padmore, however, without communicat-
ing this to the plaintiff, still proceeded with the
action.
Ephraim ‘Balls—l am the plaintiff, and reside at
Notting-hill. In 1857 I purchased of Mr. Hallam
a diamond ring for £125. In July, 1858, I was
acting as conductor of an omnibus running from
Bayswater to Whitechapel. The defendant's wife
was a passenger, and several times afterwards.
She was in the habit of speaking to me while
ridinr, in the omnibus, and subsequently she
invited me to her house, 7, Kildare-terrace.
She told me she was a widow. I visited at
her house on two or three occasions only. On
the second visit to the house I had the ring with
me. She saw it on my finger, asked to see it, pre-
tended an attachment to me, held it and asked me
to let her take it to Ramsgate, where she was going,
as she had some friends there who were judges of
diamonds, and I let her have it. I did not give it
to her as a present. 'While she was at Ramsgate I
made inquiries and found that she was a married
woman. I found I was the victim of misplaced con-
fidence. After that I frequently asked for the ring.
She said that it was in her jewel-case, and that she
would return it in a few days. She afterwards
gave me the pawn-ticket, which I received on con-
dition that she would raise £6O and redeem the
ring. I kept the ticket. I was not in a position to
redeem the ring. She asked me to go round to a
loan-office to try to get a loan for her to redeem the
ring, but when I said that she was a married wo-

man they told me they could not lend the money
without the husband's consent. I applied to her
husband-for the ring by letter. I consulted Mr.
Broughton at the police-court about it. I then
brought this action.
Cross-examined—l am now conductor of a Bays-

water omnibus in .the employ of Mr. Newman.
When I firsb met Mrs. Archer she was going to
Whitechapel. I carried a parcel for her from the
omnibus to Kildare-terrace the first time, when she
asked me in. I found a nicely furnished house. I
had some wine, and then left. It was not on the
first occasion that she told me she was a widow.
Such a thing as this is not a very strange
affair. I swear she did not tell me she was a mar-
ried woman, and. that her husband was at Rams-
, gate. I wore the diamond as a pin on the Sunday
, when I visited her. (The diamond ring was pro-
, dueed, and also the setting for a pin in the case
with it, by the pawnbroker.) About three weeks
after I first saw her I made inquiries, and found
that she was a married woman. I don't know Mrs.
Richards, Mrs. Archer's sister. (Mrs. Richards was
then pointed out to the witness.) I think I have
seen her before. I was never in her house. I might
have taken refreshment with Mrs. Archer on otoer
occasions; did not make items of it. I was never
in her house after she returned from Ramsgato.
My attorney, Mr. Padmore, has never-told me £69
was paid into court; he said he believed that some
money was paid in, but not that he had taken any
out. I have two or three photographs of myself.
I don't remember whether I gave Mrs. Archer one.
I gave her no gloves or garters. I might have given
her a portrait in a case. I was surprised to receive
a pawnbroker's duplicate.
Re-examined—When I allowed her to have my
ring I believed her to be a lady I might marry.
Nehemiah Balls--I am the plaintiff's brother,
and keep the refreshment-room at the Bristol Rail-
way station. I came to London in August, 1858.
Kildare-terrace my brother's possession then. I
the same evening I came to
and saw Mrs. Archer, and the ring was on
lbwSteaoerwlinfidttontinlogeer. She remarked that it was a much finer
stone than the one in my ring. I have mine on
now, and also another diamond ring on. She said
it was my brother's. We were then in the draw-
ing-room about an hour. I saw her again three or
four days after at the Zoological-gardens with my
brother. I left them there.
Humphries—l am assistant to Mr. Wood,
pawnbrekcr. I produce a diamond ring. It was
first pledged on the 7th of August, 1858, for £3 10s.;
then redeemed ; pledged again on the 21st of August
for £2O ; then redeemed, and pledged again on the
20th of September for £6O by Mrs. Arcer. It is
worth about £l4O or £l5O. It can be used as a
ring or a pin. Mrs. Archer paid the interest up to
November the 29th, 1858.
Louis Kyesor—l have dealt in diamonds for 40
years. The ring is worth £l5O ; it is a diamond of
the first water, and crf unusual size.
Mr. James said the defendant, Mr. Archer, had
married unfortunately, in 1857, his .present wife,
and had furnished a house for her, and provided a
carriage and horses, and was living extravagantly
and beyond his means. He was a young man just
come of age and into possession of £12,000 or
£15,000. He was of weak intellect, and had been
very indulgent to his wife. The whole story of the
plaintiff as to the hope of being married to Mrs.
Archer, and her representing herself to be a widow,
was false. Painful as it was, it would be proved
that Mrs. Archer told hint she was married, and
that they had illicit intercourse. Some months
after the plaintiff turned round and threatened to
expose Mrs. Archer to her husband unless she re-
turned the rinu which he had given her. The
husbi ILI not wanting the plaintiff to sustain any
loss, had paid into court the sum of £69 to redeem
the ring, which the plaintiff might have done, if
that had been all that was wanted. His attorney,
however, had persevered in the action, in the hope
that fear of exposure would extort from the defen-
dant a groat deal more.
Ellen Archer—l am the wife of the defendant.
We were married June 21, 1857. I was going in
the omnibus to Whitechapel, to see my sister, who
was living in B;amer's-street, Commercial-road East
when the plaintiff first spoke t 3 me about the wea-
ther, When I got out I asked him to get me a cab.
He said, would I go back by the same 'bus at
night I did. I used to go backwards and for-
wards in his 'bus. He followed me home. I did
not invite him. There was no parcel for him to
carry to Kildare-terrace, as he said. He gave me
his likeness when I was in the 'bus. I told him my
husband was gone to Ramsgate. His brother, him-
self, and I went to Cremorne. He put the ring on
my finger as I was sitting on the ottoman in my
house. I said I dare not wear it for fear of my
husband. Ho said, " Keep it for my sake."
slept in OxeLden-street with him. He knew I was
married. He has been concealed in my house once
in a cupboard, and once under the bed in my, room,
when the servants were coming. He first asked for
the return of the rincr when he saw a bill put up in
the window of the ause to let it. When we were
moving lie said, "If you can't give me the ring,
give me the duplicate." Ile wanted rue to borrow
money, but I would not do it.
Cross-exa nined—l shall keep it secret where I
am living now. I am living
somewhere in Clerk
en well.-

I‘lz. Sergeant Parry—Hose you Wen married
before ?

Mrs. Archer—That is not the question of the
ring. Try the ring case, and then try any ether
you have against
Mrs. Itieliards and Mr. Archer were also
-examined.

lYilsont solici tor, proJuced trilst ciciti vest,