Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1892-11-10
GIVEN A SALVE OF GOLD.
Mr.. Lender Awarded Damages-No
Guilty of the Theft.

Guilty of the Theft.
LONDON, Nov. 4.-The sensational SUIT
of Mrs. Leader, wife of Lieut.. Leader
against Mrs. Smyth, wife of Mal.-Ien.
Gibbons Smyth, for SANDER, resulted TO-
dav in a verdict for the plaintiff for
$500. Mrs. Smyth charged that Mrs.
Leader, while on visit to her mousse
on September 81, 1891, stole brooch
belonging to Mrs. Smyth, which the
latter declared she subsequently saw
exposed for sale III leWeief
shop. Mrs. Smyth procured the brooch
by threatening to take legal action
against the jeweler, and then wrote
letter to Mrs. Leader, who was IN lno'a
with her husband, accusing her OF the
theft, and stating thai IL she desired TO
avoid publicity she must send by return
mail ) guineas to cover the costs OF
recovering the brooch. Instead OF re-
plying to this letter, Mrs. Leader,
as soon RS possible alter the receipt
| thereof, instructed counse. to BRING
suit for damages for SANDER against
Mrs. Smyth. Mrs. Leader acknoWl-
edged selling a brooch to. the, Jeweler
| in whose shop the alleged stolen
article was found, but declared that
the brooch she sold YVES her per-
sonal property, it having been given
| to her by a friend, Capt. French,
| as a wedding gift. To-day WAS the
| fourth day OF the trial, and rs the case
has progressed interest has increased,
and late corners found 1t impossible 10
get into the courtroom. Many OF
those who were unable to gain admls-
sion waited for hours in the corridors,
/ II, rt.iy hat 40 60
would be brought to an end to-day,
and they wanted to be among the first
to hear the verdict.
| When Justice Day had taken his seat
on the bench and the court WAS de-
clared open, Mr.. Lockwood, counsel
tor Mrs. Leader. took up the summing
up at the point where he was inter
rupted yesterday by the adjournment
of the court. He reminded the jury
that the ieweler who sold Mrs. Smyth
the brooch had failed, after three eX-
aminations, to find his private mark on
the brooch produced In court, which
WAS the brooch Mrs. Leader had
cold. The main issue of the
case being one of identity, the
evidence of this jeweler was absolutely
in 1aver of Mrs. Leader. A bad feature
in the line of defense was the harplng
upon Mrs. Leaders association with
Capt. French. Counsel for the defend
ants asked the jury not to think lightly
of Mrs. Leader. Why were these
shafts leveled at Mrs. Leader unless
it were 10 hunt her reputation and per
chance wound the heart of her hus-
band? That must have been the object
of the defendants in instruct!ng their
counsel to refer to Capt. French, but
they seemed TO have forgotten that If
"A I l. Il l,, f,,.> ,,Il b
Capt. French, it made 1T all the
more probable that he would
have sent her present on the
occasion Of her marriage. lie
asked the jury to consider the strong
improbabiity of q woman of Mrs. Lead
er's position, with plenty of money and
| iewelry, stealing brooch ofminor value
from the dressing table of her friend,
while tho friend WAS in the room, weal-
ing it on the same day, and selling it
within a stones throw Of Mrs. Smyth's
house.
At this point the audience applauded.
Justice Day remarked: "lf L knew
who were the vulgar persons who APP
pauded, and who are treating the court
room as a place of private entertain
ment, l would give them such punish
ment as would prevent them tor long
period from making similar noises"
Justice Day then proceeded to sum
Up the case. He expressed surprise at
the line of defense. Continuing, he
said that if the defendant had pleaded
that she had uttered the SANDER on q
privileged occasion, he might have
held that that view was right in
the absence of express proof of
malice. But, the defense justified the
SANDER and undertook to prove
to the satisfaction of the jury
that the brooch had been stolen
by Mrs. Leader from Mrs. Smyth's
room. 1t was q curious coincidence
that these two ladies', friends, should
possess brooches of pattern from
which the original maker knew of only
| nine being manufactured up to 1891. 1T
was also q curious coincidence that both
ladies should cease to possess them at
about the same time, Mrs. Smyth losing
ners and Mrs. Leader selling hers.
With regard to Mrs. Leaders position
it was important to remember that she
was not in want OF money. Viewing all
the evidence, he must say that if
the case had been taken to a criminal
court he would nor, on the evidence of
Mrs. Smyth, have allowed the charge to
go before jury. / was open to the
present Jury to decide whether Mrs.
Smyth was actuated by malice in utter
ing the charges against Mrs. Leader.
The jury retired at lilo and returned
at 1:35 with verdict awarding Mrs.
Leader $500 damages. The verdict
was greeted with applause, which the
court Immediately suppressed. The
friends of Mrs. Leader crowded around
her, enthusiastically congratClating her.
She waited in the courtroom only
long enough to shake hands with
| MIR Lockwood after which accOmna-
MED by her husband, she quickly
walked through the corridor and en-
tered cab. A large crowd was block
ing the Strand, and Mrs. Leader,
when she was recognized, was loud
ly cheered. The police attempt
ed to clear the street, but their
efforts were vain until after Mrs.