The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-11-04
THE ENGLISH JEwELRY SCANDAL.
mrs. Leader, . Pretty Woman, Testfies
Against Her Defamer.

LONDON. Nov. SIN the trial of the suit for
damages for SANDER brought by Mrs. Leader
against Mrs mythe, it Was shown that the dia-
mon1 brooch which the latter was accused of
stealing was pawned the day before it was
alleged to have been stolen; that the
1ewelcr TO whom IL was pawned delivered ii to
Mrs. smythe that the latter wrote to Mrs. Leader
demanding eco lawyers fees Is the price of ST.
ience, and that Mrs. Leaders husband then in
sisted on suit for SANDER. The jeweler testi-
fed that the brooch ia controversy was similar
to the one Mrs. Leader pewned, but there
were many Others like it The police
had issued Q notice concerning the miss
ing brooch, with . picture OF 1t. An
examination showed that the alleged stolen
brooch had eight points, while the one Mrs.
Leader pawned had only six. Mrs Leader testi-
fed that the brooch was given to her by an
army officer in Cairo, and positively denied that
she stole Mrs Smythe's brooch. Mrs Leader
Was subjected 10 q protracted severe cross
examination. but came out of it with flying
colorA The sympathy of the audience was
evidently with her. She is very attractive
young WOMAN. Lieut. Leader then took the
witness chair and confirmed his wife's testi-
mony. Mrs. Leaders servant confirmed her
testimony as TO her possession of the
brooch in question while in Egypt He cleaned
IL weekly. Her maid testified that she often
saw her wear 1t. and the wife of an army officer
in India gave similar evidence. Stokes, the
leweler, next testified. He said Mrs.. Leader
called al his place Of business on September p,
1891, two days before Mrs. Leader called on Mrs.
smythe and spent some time in the bedroom
from which the brooch Is alleged to have been
stolen, and offered TO sell him the brooch. He
offered to allow her "a for il, but she did not
think that amount sufficient, and declined.
This concluded the evidence Tor Mrs Leader
and Sir Edward Cha rke began his speech for the
defense He said that when Mrs. smythe made
49, ~
she believed the brooch she saw exposed for sale
in Dibden's jswelry shop was herA Con.
tinuing, Sir Edward declared that Mrs. Lead
er's acquaintance with Capt Trench was
rather odd. Now that Capt Trench was
dead, Mrs. Leader set up the story that the
brooch was gift from him. Mrs. smythe next
testified that she had been on most friendly
terms with Mira Leader. and knew what jeweiry
she had She had demonstrated with Mrs
Leader about the visits OF Capt Trench.
While testifying Mrs. Smythe asked to see the
brooch. IL shown her and, as she EXAM
ined IL, she exclaimed. "I notice that point
Is straightened." In the cross-examina-
ton OF Mrs. smythe. Mr.. lockwood,
Mrs Leaders counsel, asked: "Do you
mean that this brooch is different from yours?s
Mrs Smythe agrin examined the brooch and
then said: 'No, it's not mine" "But you were
mistaken at frst7" INTERCEPTED Mr.. lockwood.
81 am not now" was the answer. Mrs Smythe
admitted that Mra Leaders second maid, who
is now married and living in Cairo, used to
come to her house. Mrs Smythe had written to
her, but received no reply. The court here adj
iourned for the dav.
Gen. smythe testified that he believed the
brooch produced in court WAS his wifes She
often wore IL. Mrs. smythe's daughter gave
similar evidence.
Ashley, a teweler, identified the brooch as the
one he had sold Mrs. smythe. He hsd made q
case for ID. Mrs. Smythe's solicitor heie ex-
planned that the case was lost In cab last sat-
urday. Continuing, Mt. Ashley said:
He had sold only one brooch Of that pattern
early IN the year Mrs. Leaders solicitor had
shown him sketch of q brooch, but ii was not
the sketch Of the brooch he had soida to Mrs
smyth. Later Mrs. Leaders solicitor had
shown him fac-simile of the brooch
sold To Mrs. Smyih. The brooch produced
In court did not fit the case Mrs Leader had
not iii as IL the Gaze had been made for IL
There ought TO be three private marks on the
brooch, but IL scratched up in such wny
that they could not nc seen. He had examined
the brooch closely, but be could not find one of
his marks. lie identified il by the pattern
alone.
Currie, case maker. testified that the case
In which Mrs Leader said she kept the breach.
had never been made for IL It did not tit No
ieweier would put the breach in such A. osse
The solicitor for the complainant then began to
sum up. Counsel for Mrs. Leader summed IN
In her behalf and al the conclusion of his arcu-
ment the court adjourned.