WOMAN'S DRESS BILLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18388, 2 May 1923, Page 7

WOMAN'S DRESS BILLS.

CASTIGATJON BY JUDGE.

* IGNOMINIOUS , FOLLY.»i

SUCCESSION ; OF HUSBANDS,

A '.;■ remarkable ?/ judgment,;.:.': illustrated " with classical quotations. • and V sharpened with satirical comment, was delivered by ; Mr. Justice McCardie' in : the High • Court of Justice in the case in which a firm of costumiers trading in Paris arid London sued Captain J. V, Nash to recover £657, the balance of an account' due for dresses supplied to ; his wife, s Mrs. Jean Nash, vv

"The dress of woman has. been ever the mystery arid sometimes the calamity of the ages," said Mr. - Justice McCardie. "I will, however, , venture ternvention some of the items in this'case.' One is for a 'Gis-,. monda*. evening dress at 2400 francs; another for ; a morning dress at 2800, franca j-i another ; for a 'J'echeresse'; (or female sin- >, >: ner) evening ■ dress "st 3700 francs J. another for an evening dress at francs? another for a 'Chrysalido' evening dress at ' 4600 francs j and another for a fur stole at .-.;■: 15,000 fraiies. : - This account of the plaintiff's is a mere fraction of -the"dressing ' debts incurred by the ! defendant's wife. > ••- •» Amazing Prodigality. -,\ Continuing., the Judge said tho defend- : ? ant is 35 years old. He married hi wife ■ - in July 1919. ; She,was then 25 years:of. age. Her mother-, (who has been a" widow for some years) iva wealthy American?-' lady. Her auntn are ■ well-to-do; The ; , matrimonial history of Mrs; Nash is curious. It ? has a .direct bearing on the issues. When she 1 was .18, years old she married ' ; a Mr» vKirvvan,■ who'- was apparently; an. -": affluent man. This -? mairiage ; was -annulled. Then :; she married a Mr.rSiftori ; - in 1915 or 1916. He was well-to-do.- She ■■: ' obtained a divorce from Mr/Sifton in the summer . of 1919. arid then ' she married the defendant. \;\ r.>/. .' " *, In Mrs. Nash's numerous wardrobes .-there ; were always fifty or, sixty evening •■ : ".-? dresses 'for use night by nights Even the most 1 expensive dress she would wear but ' three tunes only. , Her prodigality was * - on the sam 0 scale in other articles 'of * attire. ; > The price of hat- stockings was 200 francs per pair. She had many pairs. She would purchase shoes not, in pairs,; but in several •dozens of various sorts at" a time. Everything ..was. on-, the same scale, >v ; whether ; V for -:. hats, . 'lingerie, or the like. Her catholicity of profusion ' was remarkable. «/ She threw herself '- beneath the fatal ,cnrso' of luxury; - She forgot that \ those who \ possess ? substantial % means are trustee's to use them wxiti.prudence, charity and propriety. She forgot that ; ostentation '< is. the ■> worst y form of vulgarity.; She 'ignored the sharp menace •:■ of future penury. - Dress, arid dress, alone, seems to have been her end in life. ;Shei sought, felicity in the ceaseless changes cf trivial fashions. V Self-decoration was -her ,-, vision, ' her aim, her; creed. I observe no record of'any act" of beneficence;i ,rto trace of unselfish aid to'others; she computed , . her enjoyment el life by the reckless'in- ; dulgence of her extravagance. J , : Husband's Liability. The married life of the two people be- ; came unhappy. Captain Nash became suspicious of his wife's conduct in the late autumn of .1920. ■ He has presented ■ a ■ , petition for divorce on tho ground of his wifd's misconduct with two * co-respon-dents. Mrs. Nash had a ; separate • income; of • about £1200 a year. But does the : fact f that a wife has a separate income, of itself exonerate a- husband ■ from .'the' obli- '. gation of paying her dress v bills? The ' answer seems :to be "No." "Under the, -" existing law a husband with £500 - a -'". ■ year, may have to elbtho his wife althoughs ■'-'■.'<■ she v possesses t £2000 ' a-'year or more of : hor .own,. . Apparently the law , still ?h\ that- r % . very poor husband is: legally ='' . | bound ,to feed. and, dross a very rich wife, a.. It : is : therefore„;fortunate •■ that it is for the husband alone to; decide von the scalo of domestic life, He is on»' .' titled to be his own carver. < His Lordship > then dealt with the f dfl-> I fences raised,'and said ho had come to the ! conclusion that * Captain Nash had? pro- . hibited his wife from pledging his'credit. - His Lordship, continuing, said: -A- fur- ~ ther point to consider is .whether, the articles supplied by the plaintiffs were J ; , necessaries at ; all. ;By the word "neces- ' saries" I mean articles which are reason- , - ably, needed? and suitable to the station in "life and the stylo■■; of living, fixed, by the husband. The » defendant hero! was. ft captain in the army, ; but otherwise he had no particular rank or position,, Th* word "captain" is not to be taken as a synonym for prodigality. I must make , allowance for the irrational tyranny of . social -convention I do! not overlook \ the requirements, however foolish, of so-called fashionable society. I am willing, more- ; over, to recognise the tonic propcrtin'j of an occasional new costume. Dealing with the case before me, not only as a lawyer,' but also from the point of view of a v man ; ' of the world, I humbly express my emphatic opinion that the v articles sued for are not necessaries, in either the'lay or tho legal; sense of that word£w Every item iB a mere extravagance. :

A Mere Appurtenance. Examining the question whether credit was given to the wife only and not to the husband, His Lordship said:—" Long be- : fore ) parties were married, Mrs, Nash had dealt" 1 with tfte plaintiffs. Her account :•;' begins in 'i 1912. The account : was opened -in ' tho *' namo of Mrs. Kirwan, • Then, in 1915, it v was ' changed > to: the name ;of Mrs- ton; Then, =in 1918, iha got credit apart from"-'any' husband. Then, lnHhe'aulumn of 1918, th» name in the books was changed to Mrs. Nash- But the credit : was vstill: given to her, : and' not to the defendant. '' No inquiries were made about ; tho 'defendant's :;means.:; or standing. Husbands vary, ! too repos* on financial strength; some hover on ; the brink 'of ■'.;:': mere; indigence. Nothing was known of Captain Nash. ' Ho ; was merely one of a rapid succession of husbands. Ha • was nothing more. 'He might .well be as transitory as tho other two. To the plaintiffs ha; was only m incidental male appurtenance,, to . Mrs. . Nash. : They regarded her as a woman of ; means, with* quickly-changing husbands. ! " ; ' f "-';&

" Husband Goes " Stopping." - - " The fact that a hnahand; accompanies : his wife when ; shopping, , ! or awii&l*; her .; in the ■■; choice of garments, is in •Vitselt''-;'-a neutral thing, Unless this view bo correct, o then :it ,' would follow. that, even.; r . though a man had; made his wife a most: - handsome allowance for dress, and had ; U. farther expressly prohibited :? her f from ;0 : . ; pledging his credit, yet he would be.liable : merely because 'he showed "the" : ., courtesy'/: "< : to his wife of ; assisting her in her choice u .' of a dress. ; A husband's courtesy is not to be unreasonably checked by the subtle ■ doctrines of i tradesmen '; seeking to -fix. » husband with liability. , . , In conclusion, His '."Lordship said "t It t* deplorable to observe O the J unceasing egotism of the defendant's wife and* iherecklessness with \ which' she plunged into " ; the tide of illicit profusion. She was the metro ;■ devotee '-of ? : fashion/* and ;: . thus the 'retrod the- path; which ;so soften, leads to ,- financial dishonour. It Is a profoundly '"' regrettable story. It springs into prominence at "■&'■ time ; . when women ■:■ have:gained ' : .f a-' full measure of citizenship and wide opportunities ' for benefident service,":■:>lt is revealed at a period when the calls ; for social ;:• efforts'" are ■' unceasing, ;' and \ when . the contrasts between the different rank* of oar national life ; grow ever more vivid and more significant and more moment- ' ons. '■''<0!} : -, r ''■":■■- ■::■ --~ '-.■'■. X~ '■~- • ':':■-.: ■'','■•' It only remains to be said that Mrs. Nash ''disdained' the high I standard \ which ; has-been';'created : by '■' the best and most \" gracious portion of English womanhood, '-t ; She renounced her '' duties at th» cat! of '?% empty pleasure.' She .sacrificed her privi- ■ leges of social service for the allurements ofignorainoua folly. I give judgment ; for : the defendant, with costs..',- .'■:'■''■■;'-\* ' .. ■:-:: His Lordship ;' refused to grant a • stay • of execution. , ■. -