The evening world., 1913-11-13
Mrs. Vatable's Pearl and One
Nissen Bought Not Same,
Witness SwearS.
DEFENDANT REJOlCES.
Testimony Of We'll Unshaken
by Vigorous Cross
Examination.

si3,2 20 pearl--it increased In value
from Sio.0D overnight-was frightened
when Nathan Well. a pearl dealer OF
note testified before Supreme Court
Justice Donnelly to-day that the pearl
he sold TO Albert schorr and which
Schorr sold to Mrs. vatabie was not
the pearl that J. Edward Boeck stole
from Ludwig Nissen and Company,
jewellers.
Well proved a pivotal witness and
his testimony came AZ such a surprise
to the Nissen company's lawyers that
he was subjected TO a severe cross
examination by them. Four other wit
nesses preceding We'll had testined that
tho pink pearl they had bought was
the same gem that Boeck had pledged
In San Francisco. Mrs. vatabie. pleased
with weirs testimony. patted her Law.
yers On the hack. smiled her satlsfac-
tIon to the Jurors and siggled SO heart
liy that the little forest OF black
aiErettes ON her hat behaved like pam
pab Biabb Htku WlUO.
NOT THE SAME PEARL. SAYS
EXPERT ON STAND.
Well testified that he bought the pearl
In London on June II. 1905 Its history
before he got II no was not permitted to
detail. but II the gaming tables at
Monte Carlo could talk they probably
would tell OF the Indian prince who gave
up the precious gem to pay "a gambling
debt. In ls07 Well sold the pearl to
Ludwig Nissen 4 co. for about Ss.7eo.
he testified. According TO the conten.
ton OF the Nlsssn lawyers. wnn re-
months later from Aaron Lauterbach.
into whose hands II came after Boeck
had sold Il In the West But the con-
tention was hit hard blow when Well
was asked this question by L. Lanlin
KellogS. attorney for Mrs. vatable:
WAS the pearl you purchased from
Lauterbach the same pink pearl you
| sold TO Nissen 4 Cor
1T was absolutely = different pearl"
replied the witness with emphasis.
visibly excited over his answer. Mr..
Mencken. counsel for MT. Eissen. then
began to ask the witness questions about
whether he had recent conferences with
Mrs Vatable's lawyers concerning the
pearl, and he said he had. lie said
also that he had an interest In the out
come OF the suit. but when Mr.. Menck-
en- attempted to show that II Mrs. Va
table lost the pearl she would have
grounds for an action against Well. the
Court ruled out his questions.
MRS. vATAeLE APPARENTLY
EAGER TO TESTIFY.
We'll testified further that ne had sold
hundreds Of pearls OF - grains weight.
and knew from the weight OF the pearl
that he had sold to Schorr for Mrs. Va
table that II was not the same gem nc
had sold TO Nissen q few months be
fore.
Schorr, who spent but q few minutei
upon the witness stand. testified thai
he got the pearl from Well on mem
orandum and took II to Mrs. vatable''
homo and she gladly purchased II. III
was not asked to name tho price sh'
paid. however. but his testimony opened
the way for the calling Of Mrs Vatsble
Mrs. Vstable, who seemed not tn
least disturbed when her name wa
called. stopped Eaiiy to the witnes
stand and after adjusting her sabl
furs 10 rob a chilly draught OF It
terrorv, sat down. She said that sh
know Schorr and that the pearl. whic
was handed TO her ny ono Of her at
torneyy. was the same gem she ha
purchased from him In 1908. After tw