Stealing Lillie's Jewels

(The Westminster Budget [UK weekly] 27th September, 1895)
MRS. LANGTRY'S JEWELS - £40,000 WORTH STOLEN

To the "Jersey Lily" is due the credit of making a sensational break in the monotony of the silly season. Mrs. Langtry has returned to this country after a Continental holiday to find herself the victim of a fraud by which she loses some £40,000 worth of jewellery.

On leaving England for Baden-Baden a short time ago she, in accordance with custom, deposited her jewel-box, containing various costly ornaments to the value named, with the Sloane Street branch of the Union Bank. On the 24th of last month the officials of the bank received an order purporting to be in the handwriting of Mrs. Langtry, requesting that the jewel case be delivered to the bearer.

All unsuspecting, the clerk having charge of this department delivered the box to the person presenting the demand. When Mrs. Langtry, who came back only a few days ago, sent to the bank for her jewels, the servant, instead of bringing them, informed his mistress, much to her amazement and alarm, that they had been delivered upon the 24th of last month. As Mrs. Langtry had never sent for the jewels, she asked to see the order, and at once pronounced it to be a forgery. She thereupon proceeded to the office of her solicitor, Sir George Lewis, who at once communicated the circumstance to the head office of the bank, and also gave information to the Scotland Yard authorities.

Amongst the articles in the case were the following: A diamond and pearl tiara, a diamond and ruby tiara, a diamond and turquoise tiara, a ruby and diamond necklace, a turquoise and diamond necklace, a sapphire and diamond riviere, and an emerald and diamond necklace. There were also within the box small cases of bracelets, of emeralds and diamonds, turquoise and diamond, and other articles.

The order upon the bank is written on a sheet of notepaper with Mrs. Langtry's town address in Pont Street on the top, and therefore it is conjectured that the fraud was probably instigated, if not perpetrated, by someone having access to her house. The request was in some such words as the following:- "Please deliver to the bearer my box," and then followed the signature "Lillie Langtry." Not only the signature, but the body of the letter purports to be in the handwriting of the celebrated actress.

Of course jewels of this description cannot be easily parted with, and it is surmised that before attempting to convert their booty into money the thieves will probably abstract the stones from their settings.

Mrs. Langtry, it seems, has been in the habit for some time past of placing a number of boxes in the care of the Union Bank. The box which is the subject of the present mystery was left at the Chelsea branch office when Mrs. Langtry left for the Continent. No declaration of its value was made at the time, nor was any information tendered that it contained jewellery. Mrs. Langtry herself seems to have been at first doubtful as to the actual extent of her loss. She said the box contained jewels of the value of £75,000, but this figure she afterwards corrected to £40,000.

A representative of the Press Association has managed to obtain an interview with Mrs. Langtry, but apart from the information that the actress "looked as charming as ever in a blue serge morning dress and a dark-hued hat and veil," the interviewer does not very materially extend the public knowledge. The police, it appears, have not yet got upon the track of the perpetrator of the jewel robbery. Mrs. Langtry is quite unable to assist the authorities with any suggestion as to where they should look for the culprit. Her servants have all been with her a considerable time, and she trusted them. She had no knowledge of any person named "G. Watts," who had signed the receipt for the jewellery on obtaining the box from the bank.

On the forged document, Mrs. Langtry, while admitting an appearance of similarity, commented thus: - "My 'g' s' are not made at all like those in this forged document. And then again, take the name of the month - August. You will notice that in the fictitious demand presented to the bank it is spelt 'Augst,' the second 'u' being omitted. Now, no educated person would write August in that way. The abbreviation would be simply 'Aug.,' or the word would be written in full," The address upon the envelope containing the forged demand was in a flowing masculine hand, and Mrs. Langtry observed it would be idle to suppose that she was the author of it. A reward of £500 has been offered by Sir George Lewis.

Lillie Langtry was perhaps the most famous of all the great theatrical beauties. At the height of her career she was the darling of the crowds on both sides of the Atlantic. There were many men in her life, all of them rich, and all of them showered her with jewels. Among her collection she was reputed to own the largest ruby in the World, as well as three fabulous tiaras; one of diamonds and pearls, another of diamonds and rubies and the third of diamonds and turquoises.

Mrs. Langtry keep her georgeous collection of jewels in a large metal strong-box, about 30ins long by 24ins high, which, whilst heavy, was both portable and fireproof. She customarily took this box with her on all her major tours - entrusting it to the safekeeping of the office at whatever hotel she was staying in.

Between tours, whenever she was in London, the box was deposited at the Sloane Street branch of the Union Bank, only a few yards from her house in Pont Street. Whenever she required a particular piece of jewellery, Lillie would send her butler to the bank with a signed order requesting that the box be released to him. The butler would then bring the box to Lillie who would take out the pieces she required before returning the box still containing the rest.

One morning, around the middle of July 1895, following this custom, Lillie sent her butler to retrieve the box so she could select the jewels she wished to wear at the opera that evening. Unknown to her at the time, it was to be the last time she would see most of them. A few days later she left on a trip to the Continent, and on her return merely passed through London on her way to the South Coast where she was to join a yacht.

Finally returning home in late September, Lillie sent her butler as usual to retrieve the box of jewels, only for that worthy individual to return twenty minutes later ashen faced and empty handed - having been informed by the bank that they had already released the jewel box to Mrs. Langtry on August 24th. "How can that be?" she asked in astonishment, "I was away on the Continent on that date!"

A representative of the bank had accompanied the butler and showed Lillie the written order upon which the box had been released. The note read "Please deliver to the bearer my box" and bore the signature Lillie Langtry. Lillie immediately denounced the note as a forgery and, stunned at the loss of her jewels which were not insured, immediately put the matter in the hands of her solicitor, Mr. George Lewis, who in turn contacted the police at Scotland Yard.

The subsequent police investigation found no trace of the culprit or the gems, but a few weeks later Lillie received a letter containing a ransom demand asking £5,000 for the return of the missing items. Lillie placed an advertisement in a newspaper offering to negotiate with the ransomers, to which she received a response alleging that the jewels were now in France and that the ransom must be paid in Dieppe. The bank grudgingly advanced the money for the ransom, and two of Lillie's friends set off to France to keep the appointment, but withdrew for their own safety when the individual that met them tried to lure them deeper into the country.

In the meantime Lillie was pursuing a legal case for negligence against the bank. The banks defence was that Mrs. Langtry had not informed them of the contents of the box or of its value; that the thief, who gave his name as George Watts, had been able to perfectly describe the box; and that the warrant had been written on Lillie's own notepaper and bore a perfect facsimile of her signature. Lillie countered, however, that it was common knowledge that she was out of the country at the time of the theft, and that bank should only have released the box to herself or her butler, both of whom were known to them. She also noted that the signature on the document appeared identical to a copy of her signature that had been published in a Pears Soap advertisement!

The case of Langtry v. The Union Bank of London was scheduled in the Queens Bench Division of the High Court to be heard before Mr. Justice Hawkins and a jury on the morning of 6th May, 1896. Lillie's legal representatives were to be no less than Sir Robert Reid and Mr. Herbert Asquith - then a QC but later to become Prime Minister of England! The suit was in the amount of £35,000 - that being the minimum amount at which the jewels were valued with individual items valued between £50 and £7,500.

The case drew massive public attention and the court-room on the day of the hearing was thronged with members of the fair sex all wearing their own best finery. The proceedings were scheduled to begin at 11.00 a.m. but for some time before that the barristers on both sides were seen to be involved in animated discussions with slips of paper between passed between the opposing parties.

When the judge arrived to open the case, ten minutes late at 11:10 a.m, Sir Edward Clarke, QC, rose and addressed the court: "In this case, in which I appear for the defendants, I have to inform your Lordship that it will not be necessary to try it. The action was one which involved very serious consideration on the part of the bank, and they certainly could not have submitted to any verdict or judgment against them which would have involved either the imputation of negligence against any of the officers of the Bank, or which might have carried with it the assertion of a larger responsibility than anybody believed the Bank to have undertaken. They could not have submitted to any verdict against them on any terms without the fullest investigation of the various considerations of the law, as well as investigation of the facts; but, notwithstanding, there is no doubt that in this case Mrs Langtry, who was a customer of the bank, had suffered a very considerable loss, and under these circumstances the authorities of the bank have thought that it would be right on their part to contribute towards the loss."

A Failed Attempt on Mrs. Brown-Potter's Jewels

Four years after the successful theft of Lillie's jewellery, a pair of confidence tricksters set their sights on Mrs. Brown-Potter's fine collection but reckoned without the quick thinking of her plucky French maid. At about nine-o'clock in the evening, whilst Mrs. Brown-Potter was on stage at Her Majesty's Theatre, playing Milady in "The Three Musketeers," the two men presented themselves at her residence claiming they had been sent from the theatre to fetch certain items that the actress required urgently. The maid, who was alone in the residence apart from an elderly cook in the downstairs kitchen, asked for proof of their authority - whereupon one of the men produced a letter on the theatre's notepaper which read:
"For Mrs. Brown Potter, Please give the bearer:
Brooch and rings, Bracelets, Comb for Hair, Clasp for Neck."
It was signed "H.B.T." (Herbert Beerbohm-Tree, the manager of the theatre). The maid was suspicious but told the man bearing the letter that she would go fetch the items. When he made to follow her she told him he would have to wait while she consulted "Monsieur." The man became alarmed and immediately asked if the gentleman was at home, whereupon the maid assured him he was. When she then called out for the imaginary "Monsieur" the man bolted, closely followed by his companion who had remained outside. The daring maid immediately gave chase, shouting "Thief! Robber!" and attracted the attention of a passing policeman who took up the pursuit but failed to apprehend the tricksters.

The bank, it appears, had got a severe case of cold feet. Before the proceedings, legal opinions had been divided as to the likely outcome. One the one hand, because the bank had taken no payment for storing the box there could not be judged to be any legal contract by which the bank could be held absolutely responsible for it's safekeeping. But on the other hand, by accepting the box at all, the bank had obligated itself to a 'duty of care' in that respect. So the outcome would hinge on whether or not the bank had been sufficiently diligent in exercising that duty of care, or had indeed been negligent by allowing a person unknown to them carry it away on the strength of a signed note alone. That was what must be decided by the jury, and that what was what worried the bank. Lillie was a highly popular actress, if there was any doubt at all as to the legal position, the jury were likely to side with her, and a judgement of negligence against the bank could have been disastrous for business - costing them far more than any amount they would have had to pay Lillie in damages. A compromise had to be reached, and just in the nick of time it was.

The last minute settlement offer that had been put to Lillie and which she had accepted on the advice of her legal representatives contained the following terms:

Sir Robert Reid, acting for Lillie, was next to address the court: "I have to inform your Lordship that I assent to the statement of my learned friend Sir Edward Clarke, and I have agreed with my learned friends who appear with me, Mr Asquith and Mr Bankes, to advise Mrs Langtry to accept the sum of £10,000 rather than incur the risk of protracted litigation, even with the pleasure of solving knotty questions of law." (Laughter in the court)

Mr Justice Hawkins: "That, I am sure, is always a great pleasure." (More laughter)

Sir Robert Reid: "Notwithstanding that, my Lord, strange as it may seem, Mrs Langtry has really no ambition to fix the law of the land at her own expense" (Renewed laughter)

Mr Justice Hawkins: "And in that I think she is quite right. If you are all satisfied I can only say I am satisfied, too."

At that the proceedings were terminated, with judgement being duly entered for the defendants without costs.

Although a few sapphires and rubies from the collection were recovered after being found in the possession of a firm of merchants in Hatton Garden to whom they had been sold, the bulk of the stolen jewellery was never recovered and Scotland Yard were subsequently of the opinion that they had been taken to Holland and cut up.