Abdul S, Ismail, who is facing a charge of stealing "money by un-Tawfully" pawning a diamond" ring, which he was commissioned to sell for $1,500 on July 18 by Mr. Don Robert Weerappuli, will appear before the Registrar, Mr. 1.. Morris, on Tuesday morning at 10 am, When further "evidence will be} heard. He was granted bail on one surety of $500 in his own recogniz~ ance and on condition he handed Mr. F. G. Living Hansons "is con-
@ucting the case for the prosecu ton, The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge on Saturday morning. The prosecution alleges that he disposed Of a diamond ring by pawning it {for '$750 and. stealing the proceeds. The ring was entrusted to" him by] Mr. D.'R. Weerappull, a Singhalese, with instructions not to sell it be-
Tow $1,500, Only two witnesses, DetInsp, GP. Bennet: and Mr. BD. Weereppull, were called.
The prosecution alleges that at] 6 pin. on July 18, the accused, who isa shroff employed by Messrs. Tuck" Chang & Ca, came to the: complainant, who is the sole _proprietor of the Ceylon China Export dealers. in precious ring. which "the complainant. was wearing and asked if he could sell Wt for the complainant as he had a respective purchaser of Mess Tuck Chang & Ca. The same day at 8 pam. the accused went to a Chic nese pawnshop, Woo Tsang, at 362 Wuchang Road and tried to sell the ring for $800. He was unsuccessful Dut the following day he sold the Ting to the pawnshop for $780.
'Meanwhile the complainant had tried to get into touch with Ismail for several days through the firm for which the accused worked, but he was unsuccessful, and finally When he was told by' Mr. Chang of Messrs. Tuck Chang & Ca. that the accused had left and was not returning he reported the matter to the police At 3 pin. on July 25 the complainant "received envelope Addressed to him with a pawr ticket for the diamond ring. losed. On the back of th Jape two words were typed: "From Ismail."
'On September 7 the wecused sur rendered himself tothe Britis Consulate, the police were informed and the' accused was formally charged. He replied" that he had two letters, which he wished "to show to the police.
Both Ietiers were from a Dr. hanson. The first dated July 25 ported the matter {0 the police and that a warrant had been issued for the money 10 buy the ring.
The evidence of the two witnesses supported the case for the prosecu-land Mr. Sth answered in the affrmative.
Mr. William J. Franck, an ac-Jcouniant for Haskins and Sells next Jentered the box and stated that he had been trustee in bankruptcy for [Honigsberg & Son since 1983, and nad since had the custody of the books. A sharp exchange took place [between counsel over the question of who made the entries "in the books, and the possibility of the Jentries having been made at the same time, irrespective of the dates appearing." Mr. Franck refused to Jcommit himself upon the point, but, under cross-examination, staled that {the arties seemed to have been written by the same person with the same pen and at the same time.
Returned to the witness box which he vacated in order to permit Mi Fronck's testimony, Mr. Sih declared that this cheque for the money had been given la June, and that laier he "would be given security. Mr. Peter Honigsberg, turned over to Mr. [Sin his mothers' jewellery worth $20,000 or more lalo in July, Mr. Sih said, in the hope of obtaining more money. Unable to find friends who would advance money on the jewellery, Mr. Sih gave a cheque {for "$10,000 upon which he stopped payment when he read of the firm in the newspapers. jealled "at the Chase Bank and requested. payment of the money change for the Jewellery which refused. He had credit due for 1 lured in to Honisgberg & Son {In addition and asked full settlement for the debt in exchange for the Hewellery, he stated. Finally jceepted "cash payment for the car, ind the $3,000 promissory note.
Mr. Harold S. Peck took the wile ness box and stated that the $3,000 was given to the firm of Honigsbers Son, that the cheque was entered their books, and two. Studebaker Jears "cleared of duty. that nothing was said of the loan. being personal Jand that It was definitely made to felear the cars. Under cross-examination, te stated that, so. far Jas he knew no. official receipt. was ven Mr. Sih, that he presumed the Toan was made as " personal favour and. that no interest was mentioned.
Mr. H. S. Honigsberg then testified that. "he was not present when the loan was negotiated by his son but that he attended the execution of the note in Mr. Rodgers' office. He said that he saw Me. Sih al Ande-son Ferrogiaro''s from 10 days to. to weeks later when Me. Sih asked Mr. Honigsberg to give his personal note the firm, and Me. Sih would pay the disterer purchasing a new lear, returning the jewellery. This Mr. Honigsberg refused on business rounds. "He stated that he had seen Mr. Sih within 60 days and that he old Mr. Sih, that if was unnecessary take the case to the U.S. Court as would never pay the money. He stated that he knew nothing of the ngements made by his son farding interest or whether or not Mr. Sih was given a receipt. Nothing was said of "duress when the note was signed in'Mr. Rodger's office he stated, else he could not have got the jewellery.
Mr. Rodger: So you had no inten tion of paying the note?
Mr. Honigsberg: None.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.