LINABURY v. HAINES.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3327, 30 November 1883, Page 2

LINABURY v. HAINES.

FITTING A DHESS IN COURT. A case involving some nice issues, came before the Eesidont Magistrate’s Court, Auckland, a few days ago. It was a claim for £2 5s 6d, by Mr Linabury against Miss Haines. Mr N. Brassoy for the plaintiff; Mr Theo. Cooper for the defendant. This was an action to recover the price of labour and material for a young lady’s dress, made and supplied by plaintiff, in the circumstances deposed to as follows : appeared that the defendant entered the plaintiff’s establishment, selected the material for a dress, and indicated the stylo in which it should bo “ made up.” According to the plaintiff, instructions were given to make the sleeves somewhat “ loose,” and the whole in a special

style taken from the “Pashionßook.” The dress was for a young sister of Miss Haines, a tobacconist, but the person who was to pay for it was apparently Mrs Richmond, another sister, and the wife of the licensee of a hotel in Auckland. The dress was to have been made by a particular day. It was sent home that day, but afterwards sent back to the plaintiff’s establishment, “ because (as the defendant alleged) it was not a fit.” Miss Watson and Miss Gash, assistants to the plaintiff deposed that the dress was properly made. They also said the objection raised was to the material and not to the “ fit.” This word appeared to have awakened the dialectic acuteness of the learned counsel, who said it was a “misfit” as that the material was “ unfit ” for the little girl who was to wear it ; that the style was “ becoming,” as the young lady “became” older; for the sleeves being full would be filled by effluxion of time. Mr Brassee inquired with searching minuteness into the “ kilting,” the “ plaiquet hole,” and tested the witnesses on the “ fullness of a skirt," in order to admit the wearing of improvers.” What this part of a lady’s dress was no person appeared to comprehend, and when one of the young lady witnesses was asked the question she paused, with a somewhat terrified look lest an answer should be insisted upon. Mr Theo. Cooper, who was crossexamining the witness, having brought the witness “to bay,” sat down quite satisfied, as if the “ mystery of dressmaking had been unveiled,” and he comprehended the whole of the matter unexplained. Two professional dressmakers, Mrs dagger and Mrs Rogers, who had never been consulted on the matter, took the young lady out of the Court into His Worship’s room and tried the dress on her. They came into Court again to say that the skirt “hung down too much” in the back ; that onehalf of the skirt would have to be made anew, so as to make the skirt “ even all round." One of the expert witnesses under cross-examination said that the front half could be taken away, and the other that the half at the back might be taken, but they agreed that either would do if properly “ done but neither would do as it was. The young lady for whom the dress was made had to perform the part of a “ lay figure” in the presence of a crowded court, while the garment was “ tucked in” and “ tucked out.” The counsel were heard by the Court upon the question, and exhibited such mastery of details that His Worship suggested if the learned counsel wouli give evidence they should get into the box. Nonsuited.