“ Lot 139 ”

Manawatu Times, Volume LVI, Issue 7066, 27 January 1933, Page 5

“ Lot 139 ”

FADED WEDDING GOWN MYSTEEY WOMAN’S PUECHASE DEAMA IN AUCTION EOOM. Mystery followed mystery when a sad-faced woman with tear-brimmed eyes bought at a public auction the faded green and black brocade wedding dress which for 40 years had lain in the storerooms of London pawnbrokers. Her identity is unknown to the auctioneers. Was she a relative or friend of tho woman to whom tho gown onco belonged? The interest on the gown was paid with unfailing regularity for 40 years by a woman named O’Calligan, who formerly lived in Ireland, but some years ago moved to an address near Belgrave Square, S.W. When the interest was not paid 18 months ago tho pawnbrokers wrote to her, but received no reply. Blouse and Skirt. So it was that the gown appeared at the auction-rooms under the prosaic title of “Lot 139. Blouse and skirt. ” When the auctioneer said: “Blouse and skirt with a romantic history.... What am I bid?” there came the answer: “One and sixpence.” “Five shillings, six shillings, seven shillings,’’ said the auctioneer. In the ordinary way the gown would have been knocked down for 2/- or 3/-. A middle-aged woman dressed in brown, whose face was lined and showed evidence of much suffering, was bidding. She spoke in a quiet voice and her nervous manner showed that she was unused to an auction room.

“Eleven shillings! Fifteen shillings! ” said the auctioneer. . Tho room was silent now—for these bids were rapidly restoring dignity to the old dress held up on its hanger by an attendant. Nineteen shillings! Twenty shillings! Twenty-two shillings!” Still the woman nervously Taised tho price given by the auctioneer, who was bidding on behalf of a client. “Twenty-live shillings! Any advance on twenty-fivo shillings'!” asked tho auctioneer.

“Twenty-six shillings!’’’ said the woman.

Tho hammer struck the Tostrum, and tho woman opened her bag with trembling fingers and took out tho money. The gown was carefully packed, and handed to her, and she left at once.

When a “Daily Mail” reporter asked her if sho could throw any light on its history, she said quickly, “I know nothing about it!” with a pathetic insistence.

She shook her head, with tears near to her eyes, when she was asked why she had bought it. “It is for a fancy dress!” she answered, and she knew herself that her answer bore no conviction. Then in almost a tone of anguish she burst out: “It ought not to have been photographed!” .

Without another word she darted out into the street.