The Monmouth inquirer., 1923-03-15

y
than my life before court of justice,
and having her. accused Of having COM
mitted despicsble theft from her bene-
factor. 1t was some time afterward
that !, through reading the accounts in
the paper, got some idea of what had
| taken place that day In court.
Nearly all the witnesses who APP
| peared against Evsiins were also surn-
moned on this occasion The evidence
threw no new light en the case, 50 do
not think it necessary 70 60 more than
is absolutely necessary into the events OF
that terrible day.
When l gave my explanation of my
visit to Mr.. Jurgens, the public attempt
ed to assail me with terms OF abuse and
derisioH. The judge soon called them
to order. but was subjected TO the
most offensive glances while | told the
story OF my own folly.
Sigrid did not attempt to hide her
visit to the pawnbroker, but refused to
explain for what purpose she required
the money. On the other hand, she abb
solutely denied having set foot in the
museum between Ave and half-past
seven
The public prosecutor in his address
especially laid stress upon the follow
ing:-
The accused had herself admitted that
she, on the day of the robbery, had
taken most unusual steps to become
possessed of large sum of money, but
It L. Cd sx1 ftfc ~
the pawnbroker's. 1t was clear that It
was of the greatest Importance for her
to obtain at least four thousand kroners
that day. and that all other ways out of
the difficulty seemed to be closed
against her.
She was one of the few who could,
without creating suspicion, go in and
out of the museum where the diamond
was kept.
Then there was the photograph taken
by Mr.. Howell of her standing with the
diamond in her hand at twenty minutes
to six that afternoon. That the photo
graph represented Miss Prick, although
she denied having visited the museum
during that time, there was no longer
any doubt, after an examination with the
magnifying glass.
Finally, there was the evidence of the
late chief detective, that Mr.. Jurgens at
the beginning had declared he had
bought the diamond of the accused.
Only later had the old man, frightened
by the detectives improper behavior,
changed his statement. <
These were, In brief, the chief points
in the public prosecutors address, and
it is not necessary to add that after the
evidence and his speech, there was
scarcely a person in the court who
doubted but that Miss Prick was guilty
The counsel for the accused had no
other defence than the point which
mentioned in my diary; but this he
turned to account beyond all expecta-
ton. 1t appeared that the time when
Miss Frick left the pawnbroker's could
be substantiated to the minute, by the
circumstance that the pawnbroker on
this occasion had looked at his watch
and asked his clerk if the time was not
twenty-five minutes to six. The clerk
had then leant out of the window,
looked at the clock in the church tower,
and answered in the affirmative.
The counsel had also examined the
driver who had driven Miss Frick,-I
have perhaps forgotten to tell you that
meanwhile had been able to trace this
person,-and he could clearly remember
that on this occasion he had driven at
his usual pace, neither more quickly nor
more slowly.
The counsel had, as experiments,
taken several drives with the same horse
and carriage, and had found that the
distance was never made in less than
fifteen minutes, when driving at the
usual pace, and at more rapid pace not
less than ten minutes.
He had thereby shown, he said, that
if Miss Prick was the lady who had left
the pawnbroker's at twenty-five minutes
to six-which was now an established
fact--it could not be she who had been
photographed with the diamond in her
hand at twenty minutes to six That
the little clock in the elephants head
was right to the minute, had been
proved by Mr.. Tricks evidence.
The public prosecutor In the reply,
stated that it was well-known fact that
there was often difference of several
minutes in the clocks of the town.
The counsel maintained that such a
great difference as would be necessary
in such case, at least ten minutes, was
scarcely possible. Altogether. he util-
lied this circumstance TO the utmost, and
made his final appeal to the jury so inn
pressive that when the jury retired,
there was great uncertainty as to the
result
Here Mr.. Monk opened his memoran-
dun book and produced newspaper
cutting, from which he read the conciu-
sion of the counsel's address,
1T would be foolish of me to main
tain that have proven that my client
is not guilty of the theft OF which she
is accused. But have the right 10 ask:
Is there any one who believes that the
public prosecutor has proved her guilt1
I have AT anv rate shown that iY, order