There’s one logical inconsistency I see in this story, something just doesn’t add up in my mind: How many rings were there?

It sounds like Halfie (love that name) really did give Ruth a ring. So I see three possible truths to be concluded from the given information:

1. Mrs. Montgomery somehow learned that Halfdan had given Ruth a ring and, not liking him for some reason, made up the false accusation that the ring was originally hers.
2. There were two rings. One was either misplaced by Mrs. Montgomery or really was stolen by her shady brother, Orrie. And the other was bought honestly by Halfdan and given to Ruth at, unfortunately, the exact same time that Mrs. Montgomery noticed hers missing.
3. Halfdan really did take the ring.

I find it odd that the prosecutor didn’t base his whole argument on, “But look at his wife’s hand!”, and the defense not having to produce evidence of where Ruth’s ring came from (e.g. the jeweler he bought it from, etc.). But maybe that’s what Ruth was complaining about here:

Halfie and I were not very fond of having that whole courtroom know all of our business - just what he paid for my ring, why he came to Chicago etc.

Still, it’s a great story and it’s fun reading about the outcome of a trial upon which my existence is based. I wonder what the sentence would have been like if the verdict had been guilty?