A NEW DRESS

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 286, 3 December 1931, Page 10

A NEW DRESS

"BRIGHTENS WOMAN'S LIFE." BACHELOR JUDGE WHO KNOWS. HUSBANDS AND THE BILLS. Pearls of wisdom for husbands and wives fell from the lips of Mr. Justice McCardie—himself a bachelor—during an action.which he heard in the King's Bench Division recently. The case was one in which a husband and wife were sued by a Court dressmaker.

"I believe myself," declared the judge, "that two-thirds of the money, spent on dress is spent without necessity, but nothing brightens the life of a woman more than a, new dress or a new hat. The ■brighter the lives of women the brighter the lives of ti.ein.en." Other observations from - the- judge wore these: "The majority of women who wish, to dress.well invariably succeed in dressing extravagantly." "The (husband's) letters were bubbling with love cind affection and amorous instinct, and whenever a man bubbles .with amorous instinct he ■ means he is going.to allow a woman to be extravagant." Judgment was . given against the husband. Asked what she spent in a year on dress, Mrs. Breskal, one of the defendants, replied that' she had not worked it out. "I could spend £300 a year if I had it," she said.

"Husband So Unimportant." Mr. Justice McCardie: . I have no doubt you could. Suppose a man had a salary of £2000 a year, how much should a wife spend on dress? "Oh,■about £500." The Judge: £;jOO a year?— Yes, I do not think that is exorbitant. "I do not wonder that husbands are riding third class so often," remarked Mr. Justice McCardie, amid laughter. "I never knew a woman admit spending too much on dress." When it was stated that certain bills had not been addressed to the husband, Mr. Justice McCardie remarked: "A husband is so unimportant in these days that he is hardly worth mentioning."

Mr. Leverson, for the husband, said that the defendants married after a very short'-acquaintance,- and there was no matrimonial home. • The wife had no money, of her own. With her husband's total income only £520 a year, could clothes of that type-referred'.', to be regarded as necessities? He contended that four or five guinea frocks were more in keeping with the means of the defendants.

His Lordship: Could she go to Deauville in a four-guinea gown? ; Mr. Leversian: You can get gowns that appear to be worth three or four times what they actually cost. The Judge:- Axe you married?.' Mr. Lβversion: I am. Mr. Justice McCardie: Then really what you are telling me is probably an argument which you will deliver to your wife to-night? (Laughter). Mr. Leverson:- It is her experience which has enabled mo to address your Lordship to-day. The Judgment. Mr. Justice McCardie, giving judgment, said the word "necessities" in regard to a wife was used by lawyers in a particular sense. . "Undoubtedly women are given by law: somewhat wide latitude with regard to what the law calls necessities. A Ivusband is liable for much that the ordinary "man would call extravagance, unless he takes the well-known steps that prevent a woman from improperly pledging his credit. He can prohibit her pledging his credit and then he is free from liability. He can make her, an allowance and say, 'You niust not exceed it,' and then he is free from liability."

There were methods which every husband ought to know by which he".could savo himself from the grave risks of. an extravagant wife.

"It is to be noted," continued his Lordship, "that the . husband made his: wife no express allowance for dress, and it is equally to be. noted that "there.' was, no suggestion whatever by him that lie prohibited her from pledging his credit in any way.

'"'ln the letters lie wrote his wife there is no warning against extravagance and no prohibition whatsoever, but there are letters which corroborate the statement of the wife.

"I decide this case not on any general right of women to be extravagant—l strongly : condemn the extravagance of the modern woman. , I hold that upon the evidence tins husband did in fact authorise his wife to order goods of this character and this price from the plaintiff." '■