Context Note: Newman’s sister referred to was either Sarah (Newman) Asbury or Emily Elizabeth (Newman) (Wallis) Adams.
BIRMINGHAM COUNTY COURT – YESTERDAY.
Before His Honour Judge Chalmers.
CURIOUS SEQUEL TO A PUBLICAN’S PARTY. – A case was tried with a jury, in which the plaintiff was George Newman, licensed victualler, Tyburn, Castle Bromwich, and the defendant, Frederick Augustus Grew, 71, Francis Road, Edgbaston, and formerly of the Lamp Tavern, Cannon Street. The action was brought to recover £12., the value of a diamond ring which it was alleged defendant had appropriated to his own use. Mr. Tanner appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hugo Young (instructed by Mr. Parry) for the defendant. – In opening the case Mr. Tanner said he was afraid that the real question which the jury would have to try would be with regard to the character of the two gentlemen. The circumstances of the case were of a very extraordinary description. On the 29th of January the landlord of the Bradford Arms, Castle Bromwich, invited a number of gentlemen to his house to supper, and the plaintiff and the defendant were amongst them. After supper, plaintiff sat down with three other gentlemen to play “nap.” Defendant was present, but was not playing, and plaintiff, handing him a ring, asked him “to put his glasses on it, and tell him what it was worth.” The ring had previously belonged to plaintiff’s sister, and plaintiff, thinking Grew knew something about jewellery, asked him to examine it. Upon receiving it, defendant left the room and went into the bar, where were a Mr. Perry and a Miss Fox, a waitress. In the bar defendant sat down in front of the fire, and was seen to put on his spectacles and to examine something which he had in the palm of his hand. When asked by Perry and Fox what he had in his hand he at first declined to answer, and then said, “It’s only a champagne cork.” He refused to allow them to see what he had in his hand, but was noticed to deliberately place something in the fire. Finding defendant did not return to the room, plaintiff went after him, and found him in the bar. He said to him, “What do you think of it, Fred?” To this defendant replied, “Think of what?” Newman answered, “The ring;” and then Grew said, “You gave me no ring, but a champagne cork, and I have burnt it.” The fire was then taken out of the grate, and a thorough examination of the ashes made, but no trace of the ring, or the case in which it was handed to defendant, could be found. The defendant was then searched, as also was the plaintiff, but the ring could not be found. – The plaintiff was called, and he confirmed Mr. Tanner’s statement. Cross-examined, he said that he invited the defendant to his house to dinner after the loss of the ring. He had the ring from his sister as security for £6, which he advanced to her. – A farmer named Perry said he was in the bar, and saw defendant examining something which he had in his hand, but he carefully kept it out of sight. He remarked, to witness, in reply to his question, that “it was a good brand, and money could be made of it.” The defendant afterwards threw the object on to the fire. Witness had previously asked defendant to let him look at what he had in his hand, but he turned his back on him. – Ampless Fox, a waitress at the Bradford Arms, spoke to seeing Newman with a ring and a case in his possession ten minutes before the defendant came into the bar. Subsequently she saw the defendant examining something which he held in the palm of his hand, but he refused to let her see what it was, and thrust it into the fire, and it blazed up. – Defendant was then called, and stated the plaintiff gave him a portion of a champagne cork and asked him to examine it. He went into the yard, and on returning to the bar put on his glasses to look at the markings upon it. In reply to questions from Miss Fox and Perry, he said “Giesler is a good brand.” He referred to the markings on the cork. He threw the cork into the fire. He denied that he refused to show it to Miss Fox or Perry. He thought plaintiff had played a joke on him. – Thomas Wild, Edward Lingard, and John Bill, all of whom were playing cards with the plaintiff at the time it was alleged that the ring was handed to the defendant, each stated that they did not hear Newman say anything to Grew about a ring, nor did they see anything passed from the one to the other. – In reply to the Judge, Bill said Grew was “nearly” sober, but Newman was quite sober. – Mr. Hugo Young, addressing the jury, said they were in reality trying Grew on a charge of gross fraud. – The jury found for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, and judgment was entered accordingly.
(Birmingham Daily Post, 11th March 1886)
Our Family 2 