JEWEL. A precious stone ; a gem; a per sonal ornament, consisting more or less of precious stones. An ornament intended to be worn on the person.
The precise meaning of the word was dis cussed by Shaw, C. J., in Com. v. Stephens, 14 Pick. (Mass.) 370. He said : "The ques tion is whether plain gold earrings and knobs, without any precious stone, pearl, or other gem set in them, constitute jewelry." "Jew dry is not found in. any English dictionary, and is probably an Americanism. It is de fined in Webster to be jewels in general. He defines 'jewel' to be 'an ornament worn by ladies,' a pendant in the ear.' It is mani fest, however, that these are put by way of instances, and not intended as strict defi nitions. The term 'bijou,' which seems to be nearly analogous to it in the French lan guage, is defined to be 'a little work of orna ment, valuable (precieux) for its workman ship or by its material. Cette femme a des beaux bijoux.' Dict. de l'Acad. The counsel on both sides cited passages of Scripture to show, on the one side, that the translators of the common' version included ornaments of gold under the name of jewels, and on the other, to show that by a distinct enumera tion they excluded them. These instances do little more than show that, though the argument founded on them is at first view plausible, it would be entirely unsafe to rely upon it as a ground of legal construction. Nor can mach more reliance be placed upon lexicographers ; they are necessarily con fined, in a considerable degree, to generali ties, and cannot ordinarily go into minute and very accurate distinctions. On the best consideration we have been able to give the subject, we are satisfied that the legislature, in the use of the word 'jewelry,' intended to employ it as a generic term, of the largest import, including all articles under the genus. Without attempting to define the term used in the statute, we are all of opin ion that earrings and ear-knobs are included under the term jewelry, as it was used in the statute." The meaning of the word is most frequent ly drawn into question in cases involving the construction of statutes limiting the lia bility of innkeepers for money, jewelry, or valuables not deposited in the safe. In such a case it was said, "The watch, and pen and pencil case are certainly valuables, and per haps might be called jewels, but I think should be considered a part of the traveller's personal clothing or apparel. Gile v. Libby, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 70; Ramaley v. Leland, 43 N. Y. 539, 3 Am. Rep. 728; Bernstein v.
Sweeny, 33 N. Y. Super. Ct. 271; but under a similar statute specifying money, jewelry, and articles of gold and silver manufacture, a gold watch was held to be included as an article of gold manufacture; Stewart v. Par sons, 24 Wis. 241.
The meaning of the word is also frequent ly involved in cases arising under the tariff law's, which usually contain also the term "imitation jewelry." In such a case La combe, J., said : "The word jewelry is gen erally used as including articles of personal adornment, and the word further imports that the articles are of value in the com munity where they are used. . . . The articles of value used for personal adorn ment in our civilization are, and for centuries have been, the precious metals gold and sil ver, to which, I think, platina is now gener ally added, and what are known as the pre cious stones, the diamond, sapphire, ruby, etc." "There is such a thing as imitation jewelry. . . If by a pleasing combina tion of appropriate materials, by an attrac tive arrangement of parts, an article is pro duced bearing a general resemblance to real jewelry ornaments, and suitable for similar uses, it may fairly be called imitation jewel ry." Robbins v. Robertson, 33 Fed. 709. Where a jeweller claimed an exemption as tools of a debtor, of those which he himself worked with on watches as well as of those which his apprentice worked with on jewel ry, and it being found by the jury that the principal business was that of jeweller, both were held to be exempt. The court said that the circumstance that he was also engaged in the business of repairing watches did not make him a watchmaker in distinction to a jeweller ; • . . "this is rather part of the employment of a jeweller, as exercis ed in this country, than a distinct and sepa rate occupation by himself." Howard v. Williams, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 80.
Family jewels constitute one of the kinds of personal property for the unlawful deten tion of which the remedy at law is consider ed inadequate and equitable relief is ,sus tained; Ad. Eq., 8th ed. 91.
They are also included in paraphernalia, and "even the jewels of a peeress have been held such ;" 2 Bla. Com. 436.
Jewels of the wife, though given • by her husband's will to her for life, were decreed to her absolutely, as her paraphernalia (q. v.), as against creditors who sought to have them sold to pay debts charged on real es tate in aid of the testator's personal estate; 1 Bro. C. C. *576..