Kentucky Lawyer

The case of the diamond ring

7 Kentucky Lawyer The case of the diamond ring A striking incident of this was demonstrated in the federal court at Pikeville on one occasion. Without reciting all the details of the case, the trial had reached a place where the former wife of the defendant in a civil action was testifying. The action was in the nature of discovery to establish title to property which the defendant was supposed to have owned and which he was alleged to have transferred to his present wife in order to avoid paying a substantial judgment. The defendant was sitting at the counsel table with his attorney, Mr. Ervin Sanders, of the Pikeville bar. His wife, a very comely young blonde, was seated beside him. She was wearing a large diamond ring which had attracted some attention from the court attaches and spectators for the two days of the trial. The witness, who I have said was the former wife of the defendant and was, of course, hostile to the defendant, had been subpoenaed to testify about the disposition of the property. Among other things she said that her former husband had bought and given to her a twelve thousand dollar diamond ring which he had required her to return to him when they separated. She gave a very minute description of the ring and its setting . She related very convincingly the reason she knew its value and the fact that she herself had seen it paid for with thousand dollar bills taken from a safety vault tin bo. She then said, “That’s the ring right there on his wife’s hand now.” This remark seemed to take by surprise the attorney who had called her as a witness. It was indeed a valuable bit of evidence. The attorney enlarged upon it and had  Mac Swinford her reiterate the details of the acquisition of the ring and its positive value. Finally, he concluded his eamination and sat back to enjoy the discomfort and veation of opposing counsel. Mr. Sanders cross-eamined the witness on many other matters, unrelated to the incident of the ring. It appeared as if he were going to ignore it as the best way out of a bad situation. The wearer of the ring made no effort to conceal it but left it in plain view for everyone to admire. At last, Mr. Sanders asked the witness to again recount the reasons, background and steps by which and for which the ring had been acquired and paid for by the defendant. This she gladly did, seeming to get unusual pleasure out of publicly ridiculing her successor in their husband’s affection as the belated possessor of her own cast off, second-hand jewelry. I don’t know just how far a twelve thousand dollar jewel can become a thing to be disdained by a second wife. Finally, after repeated positive identification , Mr. Sanders took the ring from the wearer and walked to the witness chair and handed it to the witness. “Now,” he said, “are you positive that is the ring?” “Yes,” was the prompt reply. “It is the same stone and the same setting?” “Eactly,” came from the witness. He then took the ring and turned his back on the witness as if to return to his counsel table. After a few steps he turned again and went back to her. “I do not want to be persistent, but I want you to again carefully eamine this ring which you say you once wore for several months and tell this court whether you 9 Kentucky Lawyer have the slightest doubt of its being your ring, or rather, the one which your husband paid twelve thousand dollars for.” She again took the ring in her hand and more positively than ever reaffirmed her identification. The lawyer then took it from her, walked to opposing counsel’s table and laid it down in front of him with the remark, “You can have it; it cost two dollars and twentyfive cents.” Everyone was stunned. All of us had been completely taken in. I have never learned the true state of facts about this ring. I believed the witness was telling the truth. I could not make inquiry of Mr. Sanders as I was trying the case. If some day the mystery of the twelve thousand dollar ring is revealed, I may yet learn...