The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-11-05
THE LONDON SCANDAL.
The Jury Awards Mrs. Leader
Damages Against Mrs. smyth.
THE END OF 4 FAMOUS CASE
In Which Aristocratic Ladies We're
tho Pripcipals.--NOt Proven that
Mrs. Leader Stole Mrs, snyth's
Brooch.--rhe Justice's Charge to
the jury Settled It,

LONDON, Nov. 4-The Queens bench
was again crowded to-day with an aris-
tocratic throng, all curious to hear the
conclusion Of the celebrated Leader
smyth case, which is an action for dam
ages for alandor brought BY Mrs. Lieu
tenant Leader against Mrs. Major
General Gibbons smyth. The latter
charged that Mrs. Leader, while on a
visit to her house on September q, 1891,
stole brooch belonging to Mrs. smyth,
which the latter declared she subse.
quently saw exposed for sale in jewell
or's shop. Mrs. Smyth secured the
brooch by threatening to take legal
action against the jeweler, and then
wrote n letter to Mrs. Leader, who is in
India with her husband, accusing her
OF the theft, and stating that if she
desired to avoid publicity she must send
by return mail five guineas TO the costs
OF recovery OF the brooch. Instead OF
replying to this letter Mrs. Leader, rs
soon as possible after the receipt there
OF. instructed the counsel to bring suit
for damages for SANDER against Mrs.
Smyth. Mrs. Leader acknowledged sell
ing brooch to the jeweler in whose
shop the alleged stolen article. was
found, but declared that the brooch she
sold was her personal property, II hay
ing been given to her by o friend, Cap
tain French, as n wedding gift.
When Justice Day had taken mis- seat
on the bench and the court was de.
clored open, Mr.. Lockwood, counsel
for Mrs. Leader, tool; up the summing
nj tho point where he was Interrupted
Yesterday by the adjournment OF the
court. He said the joweler who had
sold the brooch to Mrs. Smyth had
failed after three examinations to find
his private mark on tho brooch pro.
duced in court, which was the brooch
Mrs. Leader had sold. The main issue
OF the case being one OF identity tho
evidence OF the ieweler was absolutely
in favor OF Mrs. Leader.
A bad feature in the line OF defence
was tho harping upon Mrs. Leaders,
association with Captain French.
Counsel for the defendants asked the
Jury to think lightly of Mrs. Leader.
Whv were these shafts levelled at Mrs.
Leader unless it we're to injure her
reputation, perchance wound the heart
OF her husband? That must have been
the object Of the defendants in instruct
ing their counsel to refer to Captain
French, but they seemed to have for
gotten that il Mrs. Leader had been so
friendly with Capt. French it made it
all the more probable that he would
have sent her present on the occasion
of her marriage. lie asked the jury TO
consider the improbability OF n woman
OF Mrs. Leaders, position, with plenty
OF money and jewelry, stealing a brooch
OF minor value from the dressing table
OF her friend while the friend was in
the room, wearing it on the same day,
aud selling it within a stones throw OF
Mrs. Smyth's house.
The Justice then proceeded to sum up
the case. lie expressed a surprise at
the line OF defence. Continuing, he
said, that if the defendant had pleaded
that she had uttered the SANDER on
privileged occasion he might have held
that that view was right in the absence
Of express proof OF malice, but the de.
fence justified the SANDER and under.
took to prove to the satisfaction OF the
jury that the brooch had been stolen
by Mrs. Leader from Mrs. Smyth's
room.
1t was a curious coincidence that
these two ladies, friends, should pos.
eess brooches OF pattern from the
original maker, who knew OF only nine
being manufactured until 1891. 1t was
also coincidence that both ladies
should cease to possess them ut about
the same time, Mrs. Smyth losing hers
and Mrs. Leader selling hers. Mrs.
Leader was not in want OF money.
Viewing all the evidence, he must say
that il the case had been taken to a
criminal court he would not, on the
evidence OF Mrs. Smyth, have allowed
the charge to go before jury. 1t was
open to the present jury to decide
whether Mrs. Smyth was actuated by
malice in uttering the charge against
Mrs. Leader.
The jury retired at 1:lO and returned
at $50 with a verdict awarding Mrs
Leader $500 damages.