A LAUNDRESS'S WEDDING GARMENT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 1842, 12 November 1897, Page 6

A LAUNDRESS'S WEDDING GARMENT.

At the Clerkenwell County -Court an amusing case was heard in which a laundress, Maria Flowers, of 412 Caledonian ■ road, was the plaintiff in an action to recover £1 ISs, the value of dress materials, ‘V’ from Lily Irwin, of 6 Brandon road, King’s Cross, dressmaker. _ Mr Thomas Clarke was for and Mr Edmonds for the defendant. The plaintiff’s case was that in May last she was invited to a wedding, and, being anxious to be prettily dressed, she called upon the defendant with sixteen yards of serge and lining to match, value £1 18s, which ske instructed the dressmaker to make into a smart frock. When it was brought home plaintiff examined the contents of the parcel, containing two skirts, a bodice, and the details of two other bodices in pieces. Referring to the disjointed fragments, plaintiff said to the small boy who brought the parcel: “Wot is there ’ere?” The small boy said : “I don’t know nothink.” —•(Laughter). Mr Edmonds (to plaintiff): You don’t approve of the dress ? Plaintiff: I should think not. I could make one better myself. Mr Edmonds: Is that the reason why you went to the defendant ? Plaintiff: I went to the defendant ’cos I thought she could do it better than me ; but, lor’ bless me, she ain’t no dressmaker. — (Laughter.) Mr Edmonds : What is the fault you find with the dresses ? Plaintiff: Fault ? They’re full of faults. One skirt is two inches longer on one side than the other. Why, it’s lopsided. I ain’t going to a wedding in a thing o’ that kind. Not me !—(Laughter.) Mr Edmonds : Is that all you complain of Plaintiff: Ain’t that enough ? I wanted it perfect. Mr Edmonds: What’s wrong? This bodice ? Plaintiff: It don’t fit right. Mr Edmonds : But can’c that be altered ? Plaintiff: No, not fit for a lady, nor no woman as I know.—(Laughter.) Continuing her evidence, plaintiff said she had not paid the defendant a penny, and did not mean to. Judge Meadows White : The claim is for an imperfectly-made dress, and, as far as I can see, it is spoiled. Mr Edmonds : Yes, imperfect, but capable of alteration. The necessary alteration will cost only a shilling or two. Catherine Maria Sharpe, practical dressmaker, said she had been called in to examine the dresses, and found them all spoiled. “ Skirts and bodices and hall; it were shameful.”—(Laughter.) Mr Edmonds; But couldn’t you alter them to suit the plaintiff’s figure? Witness : No: 1 wouldn’t take it on at no price. It’s a knock-out.—(Laughter.) You don’t understand nothink of ladies’ dresses, —(Laughter.) Mr Edmonds : Look at this bodice. What is the fault you find in the cutting ? Witness : Does your wife dress like that ? Gar’n.—(Laughter.) Look at this sleeve; it’s cut all wrong. It ain’t the latest fashion.—(Laughter.) Defendant: It is the latest fashion, and don’t you forget it.—(Laughter.) An old lady, a charwoman, was called by the plaintiff, and said that one of the dresses was for her. She, also, was going to the wedding, and had agreed to give plaintiff 14s fid for it, at the rate of 2s a week. Mr Edmonds ; After the dresses were sent to the plaintiff did you not call upon Mrs Irwin and ask her to lend you 3s? — (Laughter.) Witness : Me hask her for 3s ? It’s false. —(Laughter,) Mr Edmonds: And when she refused, didn’t you swear at her ? Witness: I never used a bad word in all my natural.—(Laughter.) I called on the defendant to see about some washing. The Judge said that if the plaintiff would return the dresses he would give judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. The plaintiff gave this undertaking, and received udgment in her favor.