Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Cornish and Devon Post. East Cornwall Times and Western Counties Advertiser. Saturday 02 Jul 1887
Page 4 Column 3
THE STORY OF A FUR CAPE.
[BY OUR OWN REPORTER.]
At the Cornwall Quarter Sessions on Tuesday last before Sir Colman RASHLEIGH, Priscilla WHALE, 25, servant, was indicted for feloniously stealing a fur cape, value 20s., the property of Helena BRAUND, of Virginstowe, at Launceston, on the 26th March. - Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was defended by Mr. EDYVEAN. - Mr. CLARK, of Liskeard, appeared to prosecute, and, in opening the case, said that on the day in question prosecutrix whent to the Little White Hart Inn, at Launceston, where the prisoner was a servant. She there left her cape in the market-room, and when she returned at six o'clock in the evening it was missing.
She asked prisoner about it, and she replied that she had seen it on the writing-desk. On the 29th P.C. HUGO, who had information on the circumstance, saw her in the street wearing a fur cape answering to the description of the one lost by prosecutrix. On the 4th of June he went to see prisoner and asked her to let him see the cape she had been wearing on the previous Sunday. She produced a cape exactly like the missing one, and he at once took possession of it. She said she had bought it at Callington Market and that her sister was with her at the time. The cape was identified by prosecutrix as the one she lost.
Helena BRAUND stated that she lived at Scotland Farm, in the parish of Virginstowe. She was at Launceston marked on the 26th March last, and stayed at the Little White Hart Inn. It was about 12 o'clock in the morning when she reached the town and she wore a fur cape. She left it at the White Hart Inn and placed it on the writing desk. She then went into the market and returned about 6 o'clock. On looking for the cape she found that it was gone, and she told the prisoner, who was standing in the doorway of the market-room, that she had lost the cape. She did not see the prisoner when she came there in the morning. When witness told her that she had lost her cape, prisoner said that she saw it there a little while ago. Witness's mother, who was present, said that she should tell Mr. PETHICK, the landlord, about the loss. Prisoner said it was of no use to tell Mr. PETHICK, as he was not responsible. They looked for the cape, but could not find it. Witness next saw the cape on Monday last. She looked at the cape produced and identified it as hers by a mark on its edge. There had been some alteration made in the cape, and the collar had been taken off and put in the front to enlarge it, and there was a piece of green linen added. There were also some rubbed marks around the edges. She next saw the cape in the possession of P.C. HUGO.
Cross-examined: Had had the cape about 4 years and it was in constant wear in the winter. Bought it at Mr. NICOLLS's, Launceston. No doubt there were many other capes like it; but knew this to be hers. There were several other people at the Inn at the time. Didn't make any further enquiries about it after she lost it except of the police.
Charity BRAUND, the mother of the last witness, corroborated, and also identified the cape produced by a singe and the small marks around the bottom of the cape.
By the Bench: Had not seen such marks on other capes of that sort. When told of the loss prisoner said she had seen the cape.
Cross-examined: Had only talked over the matter at home since the trial. Had not been in communication with the police. Knew about the marks previously, as also did her daughter. Her daughter gave 30s. for the cape.
P.C. HUGO deposed that on the 31st March last he received information of the loss of the cape, and on the 29th May he saw the prisoner wearing a cape of the same color. On Saturday the 14th June, he went to the Little White Hart Inn, where the defendant was servant, and asked her for the cape she was wearing on Sunday last. She went upstairs and brought the cape down. He examined the cape and said, “This cape answer the description of one stole here on Lady-day market, the property of Miss BRAUND, of Virginstowe.” Defendant said she bought it at Callington Market, of a woman who had a stall just inside the door, and she gave 18d for it. Her sister was with her when she bought it, and she resided at Callington. Witness then said he should detain the cape, and make enquiries about it, and he took it away. Prisoner said “I am sure that it is not the one, because I bought it for 1s 6d at Callington, of a second hand clothes dealer who stands just in side Callington Market Gates.” She also said she bought it a little after Christmas. He apprehended prisoner on June 6th and cautioned her. She then said she bought the cape of a woman in Callington Market just before Lady-day. She also said her sister was with her when she bought it; but when he took her to the police-station she said she did not show it to her sister until afterwards. He saw Miss BRAUND on Monday and she identified it as hers.
Cross-examined witness said he had never seen any capes exactly like this one, but he supposed there were some similar. When asked to show the cape prisoner made no objections, but readily fetched it. Being pressed as to whether the police had not been to see Mrs. MACPHERSON, the second-hand clothes dealer, the witness said he did not know, but afterwards said that Mrs. MACPHERSEN(?) had gone to Supt. PHILP at Callington; but did not know what for, and a constable from Launceston had gone to see the prisoner's sister. Witness then identified the cape as the one he took from prisoner. In defence, Mr. EDYVOAN said that the case for the prosecution depended on circumstantial evidence of the weakest description. They should remember that it was incumbent on the prosecution to ascertain in a case of this sort whether the account given by an accused person of the way in which she became possessed of stolen goods was correct or not. He submitted that the case had fallen through, and that it had not been shown that the cape was stolen. He pointed to the conduct of the accused in showing the cape to the police as that of an honest person, and as to the slight discrepancies in her statement, they were not unnatural under the circumstances, and were quite consistent with the evidence he should produce, namely, that of the woman – Grace MACPHERSON, a second-hand clothes dealer, of Devonport, who was in the habit of attending Callington Market, said she sold three capes of this sort between Christmas and Lady Day, one 1s. 3d., one 1s. and one 1s. 6d. A policeman called on her last Thursday and made inquires about the cape, and she told him just what she had told the court in the matter.
Cross-examined: Told the policeman when he called that she had sold a dark cape. - Q: Will you swear that you sold the cape? - A: Well, I cannot say. It may have been the one. - Will you swear that you sold this cape to the prisoner. - A: Well, I did not know it was the prisoner then, but I know her now. - Q: That is not the question. Will you swear that you sold the prisoner that particular cape? - A: I should not mind swearing if you wish. (Laughter.) - Well, will you swear that you sold the cape to the prisoner? - A: I should not like to swear to it. - Q: But you have just said you would not mind swearing. Now, will you swear you sold prisoner the cape. - Witness (after further examining the cape): Yes, I did. - Q: When? - A: About six weeks before Lady-day at the Callington Market, to the best of my recollection. Being further pressed, witness said she had some green cloth in stock similar to that on the cape. Annie EDWARDS, a domestic servant at Callington, sister of the prisoner, stated that he sister bought the cape at Callington Market, and showed it to witness when she came back. She afterwards went with her to get a hat. This was just before Lady-day when witness was a servant at Golding's Hotel. Cross-examined by Mr. CLARK: She could not say whether the one produced was the cape her sister bought or not but it was the same colour. - This was the case for the defence, and Mr. CLARK, in replying, contended that no reasonable explanation had been given by prisoner of her possession of the cape, and it was their duty to return a verdict of guilty.
The President, in summing up, said there appeared to him to be considerable doubt about the case, particularly owing to the lapse of time between the loss and discovery of the cape. And if the jury themselves and <sic> any serious doubts as to the matter, the prisoner should have the benefit. - The jury returned a verdict of “Not guilty,” and prisoner was discharged.
<NOTES: Helena BRAUND daughter of Samuel BRAUND and Charity PETHERICK>