The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1892-11-12
GIVEN A SALVE OF GOLD.


OF hfs. Leader, we OF Lieut.. Leader,
against Mrs. Smyth, wife OF MAJ. .-Gen.
Gibbons Smyth, FOR SANDER. resulted to-
day IN verdict for the plaintiff for
$500. Mrs. Smyth charged that Mrs
Leader, while on q visit TO her house
on September 2l, 1881, stole brooch
belonging to Mrs. Smyth, which the
latter declared she subsequently saw
exposed for sale in jewelers.
shop. Mrs. Smyth procured the brooch
by threatening to take legal action
against the jeweler, and then wrote a
letter tc Mrs. Leader, who was in India
with her husband, accusing her OF the
theit, and stating thai II she desired TO
avoid publicity she must send by return
malI gmneas 10 cover the costs OF
recovering the brooch. Instead OF re-
plying to this letter, Mrs. Leader,
as soon as possible alter tho receipt
thereof, instructed counsel 10 bring
suit for damages for slander against
Mrs. Smyth. Mrs. Leader aCknowl-
edged selling brooch TO the jeweler
in whose shop the alleged stolen
article WAS found, but declared that
the brooch she sold WAS her per-
sonal property, II having been given
TO her by friend, Capt. French,
as wedding gilt. To-day wss the
fourth day OF the trial, and as the case
has progressed interest has increased,
and late comers found it impossible to
get into the courtroom. Many OF
those who were unable to gain admis-
sion waited for hours in the corridors,
gs IL Was almost certain that the case
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
for Mrs. Leader. took up the summing
rupted yesterday by the adjournment
of the court. lie reminded the Jury
that the ieweler who sold Mrs. Smyth
the brooch had failed, after three eX-
amina1lous, 10 find his private mark on
tie brooch produced in court, which
was the brooch Mrs. Leader had
sold. The main issue of the
case being one of identity, the
evidence OF this jeweler was absolutely
in 1aver of Mrs. Leader. 4 bad feature
III the line Of defense was the harplng
upon Mrs. Leaders, association with
Capt. French. Counsel for the de end
ants asked the jury not 10 think lightly
OF Mrs. Leader. Why We're these
Shafts leveled at Mrs. Leader unless
ii 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 in6tructing their
counsel to refer to Capt. French, but
ihcy seemed to have forgotten that if
Mrs. Leader had been so friendly with
1 n 10 n oil
more probable that he would
have sent her a present on the
occasion of her marriage. He
asked the jury TO coneIdor the strong
improbabIiity OF woman OF Mrs. Lead
er's position, with plenty OF money ana
ieweiry, stealing brooch of minor value
from the dressing table of her friend,
Ihiie the friend WAS IN the room, wear
ing il on the same day, and selling II
within stone throw Of Mrs. Smytn Is
house.
At this point the audience applauled.
Justice Day remarked: IF | knew
who were the vulgar persons who ap-
piauded, and who are treating the court
room RS place OF private entertain
ment, | would give them such punish
ment as would prevent them for long
period from making similar noises"
Justice Day then proceeded t. sum
up the case. lie expressed surprise at
the line Of defense. Continuing, he
said that ii The defendant had pleaded
that che had uttered the SANDER on Il
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. Slnyth's
room. 1t was a curious coincidence
that these two ladies, friends, should
possess brooches of pattern from
which the original maker knew of only
nine being manufactured M to 1871. 1t
WAS also a curious coincidence that both
ladies should cease TO possess them at
shout the same time, Mrs. Smyth losing
hers and Mrs. Leader selling hers.
With regard to Mrs. Leaders position
it was important to remember thot she
was not in want OF money. Viewing all
the evidence, he must say that II
the case had been taken to criminal
court he would not, on the evidence OF
Mrs Smyth, have allowed the charge 10
60 before a jury. It 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 l:iO and returned
at 30 with verdict awarding Mrs.
Leader j., 800 damages. The verdict
was greeted with applause, which the
court immediately suppressed. The
friends of Mrs. Leader crowded around
her, enthusiastically congrattlatln- her.
She waited in the courtroom only
long enough 10 shake hands with
Mr.. Lockwood, after which, accompa-
MED by her husband, she quickly
walked through the corridor and en-
tered cab. large crowd was block
ing the Strand, and Mrs. Leader,
when she was recognized, was loud
ly cheered. The police attempt
e1 to clear the street, but their
efforts were vain until after Mrs.
Leader had passed. oien. and Mrs.
Smyth waited in the courtroom Until
the spectators had dispersed. In the
meantime they held a whispered con
su!tation with their friends. The ver-
diet means. with costs and additional
damages, that the defendants will have
to T,ay at least 81 so