WOMEN AND CLOTHES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21530, 30 December 1931, Page 11

WOMEN AND CLOTHES

HUSBANDS’ RESPONSIBILITY VERDICT FOR DRESSMAKER BACHELOR JUDGE’S COMMENTS. Opinions and sidelights on the cost of women's dress were a feature of the hearing by Mr Justice APCardie, the bachelor judge, of a dressmaker's claim in a Loudon court recently. “I believe myself that two-thirds of the money spent by women on dress is spent without necessity, but, on the other hand, it has a miraculously tonic effect on women. Nothing brightens the lives of women like a new dress or a new hat, and the brighter the lives of the women the brighter the lives of the men. The majority of women who wish to dress well invariably succeed in dressing extravagantly.” So said the judge in the course of the hearing. The plaintiff, Mrs Bcrmcl,. having stated that she was a court dressmaker, Mr Justice APCardie asked: What is a court dressmaker? “ Court dressmakers make dresses for people who go to court or for ladies-in-waiting,” replied Mrs Bermcl. Court dressmaker means that you charge a slightly higher price?—No; we do very good work. Mrs Bermcl added that the cost of a coat depended largely on the amount and the quality of the fur on it. “We may sell for two guineas,” she said. The judge: Yes, but not often. — (Laughter.) That is one of those very happy, but very occasional instances in your business, is it not?—(Laughter.) Asked if she knew anything about the law of husband and wife with regard to debts, Mrs Bermcl replied that sbe knew that a husband was responsible for bis wife’s debts. “Yon will find that every woman will cling to that view,” observed the judge, amid renewed laughter. , Counsel said that the claim was in respect of articles of clothing supplied to Airs Breskal. The husband and wife were living apart, Mr Breskal being then in South Africa. “ IN BED ALL DAY.” Asked what her husband’s occupation was, Mrs Breskal replied: He does nothing. He did only three months’ work in his life, and that ended in a court case.— (Laughter.) The judge: I hope the unemployed will not read that. • Asked by the Bench what her husband did, Mrs Breskal said: “He stays in bed all day and gambles at night.” The judge: He does not seem to he an ideal husband. Asked what she spent in a year on dress, Mrs Breskal replied that she had not worked it out. “ I could spend £3OO a year if I had it,” she said. Mr Justice M'Cardie: I have no doubt you could. Supposing a man had a salary of £2OOO a year, how much should a wife spend on dress? —Oh, about £SOO. “ I do not wonder that husbands are riding third-class in trains so often,” remarked the judge, amid loud laughter. “ I never knew a woman admit spending too much on dress.” Mr Breskal’s evidence, taken on commission, was read. He denied that he authorised his wife to order or purchase the clothes. His total income was £520 a year gross. THE LAW AND WOMEN. Counsel for defendant, replying to a question from the Bench, said that it was possible to get gowns that appeared to be worth three or four limes what they actually cost. The judge: Arc you married? Counsel: Yes. Then what you are telling me now is probably the argument you will deliver to your wife to-night,—No, it is her experience which has enabled me to address Your Lordship to-day. * Mr Justice M'Cardie, giving judgment, said that undoubtedly women were given by law somewhat wide latitude with regard to what the law calls necessaries. There was no doubt that the husband, apart from his income of £520, received large sums from his relatives. In this case he had not to consider whether the goods were necessary in a legal sense. If he had to consider that question, be would denounce the items as representing unnecessary extravagance on the part of the wife. “She showed in the witness box that she has no sense whatever of a wife’s duty of economy, or of the obligations of a wife to see that her expenditure on dress does not exceed a proper proportion of the husband's income.” “ The husband said in his evidence,” continued the judge, “ ‘ When I was with her I liked her to look smart at a reasonable cost. She got more than one new dress at Deauville, and I agreed to her getting these.’ The majority of women «*ho "-id- to dress well invariably succeed in dressing extravagantly.” JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. Mr Justice APCardie proceeded:—“ln the letters be wrote there is no warning against extravagance and no prohibition. The letters were bubbling with love and affection and amorous instinct, and whenever a man bubbles with amorous instinct be means be is going to allow a woman to be extravagant. “In one of his letters he says: ‘Darling, you will be loved to death when I see you.’ Any student of human nature will draw only one conclusion from that “ I decide this case not on any general right of women to be extravagant, because I strongly condemn the extravagance of the modern woman, but I hold that upon the evidence before me this husband did in fact authorise his wife to obtain goods of this character and this price from the plaintiff.” Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £9B 2s (Id against Mr Breskal, and costs. Judgment was also given for Mrs Breskal for such costs as sbe had incurred.