Pearls Lost, Found, or Never Returned?
In June 1891, London society found itself transfixed by an unlikely courtroom drama: Lady Valerie Meux, social lightning rod, collector of curiosities, and owner of one of the most formidable jewellery collections in Mayfair, stood before Mr Justice Hawkins in the Court of Queen’s Bench.
The matter at hand? Pearls.
Or rather, pearls that had vanished.
Back in 1887, Valerie had sent two pieces of jewellery — diamonds and pearls — to Messrs Percy Edwards & Co. of Piccadilly, instructing the jewellers to sell the pearls. Fashion had shifted; long, dangling pearl drops were out, and neat diamond studs were in. The pearls were no longer useful to her.
But the sale never happened. The jewellers insisted the pearls had been returned. Valerie insisted they had not.
The dispute escalated. The jewellers sued Valerie for £207 14s for goods sold and delivered. Valerie counter‑sued, demanding the value of the pearls she claimed were still missing.
The pearls in question had originally been part of a lavish purchase made by her husband, Sir Henry Meux, in July 1881.
From Messrs Hancock of Bond Street, he bought:
A pearl and diamond necklace – £2,000
A pearl pendant with diamonds – £950
Pearl and diamond earrings – £1,250
Pearl drops – £1,500
Total: £5,700, a staggering sum for the era.
By 1887, Valerie had the pearl drops detached from the earrings and sent them to be sold. What happened next became the heart of the courtroom battle.
Valerie, never one to wilt under scrutiny, appeared in court and faced questioning from Mr Cock, QC, representing the jewellers. She admitted she owned more than 100 pieces of jewellery, an entire treasury, really.
She insisted the pearl drops had been attached to the earrings when sent to the jewellers. She denied ever discussing a price. She denied they had been returned to her in a blue box. She denied knowing they had appeared in an auction catalogue in Bond Street in 1890.
Then came a moment of pure Valerie.
‘You bought a number of wedding rings from the Plaintiffs?’ asked Mr Cock.
‘Yes,’ she replied, ‘as presents.’
‘And for your own use?’
‘That is a most impertinent question,’ snapped Valerie.
The court rippled with amusement.
Eliza Fakes, Valerie’s former lady’s maid, testified that she had never seen the pearl drops.
Jane Terris, Valerie’s current maid, also stated she had never seen the pearls.
Mr Henry T. Dore of Hancock’s added that the original earrings had increased in value by 30–50% since purchase and that the pearls seen at auction were inferior to the ones he had sold to Sir Henry.
Edward Upson, Valerie’s solicitor, testified that Mr Barker of the jewellers claimed the pearls had been returned, but could not say where. Scotland? Park Lane? No one seemed sure.
The jewellers insisted that Mr Barber, a partner in the firm, had personally returned the pearls to Valerie in May 1888. No receipt had been taken, apparently not customary when a partner delivered goods.
But the judge was clear: the burden of proof lay with the jewellers.
The jury found in Valerie’s favour. She won her counterclaim and was awarded £550 plus costs.
The pearls, whether misplaced, misunderstood, or mysteriously vanished, remained a small but sparkling chapter in the life of one of the most intriguing women of Victorian London.
Sources
London Evening Standard, Thursday 11th June 1891; Aberdeen Evening Express, Saturday, 13th June 1891; Lancaster Gazette, Saturday 13th June 1891; Western Daily Press, Saturday, 13th June 1891.
Comments