A WEDDING TROUSSEAU

Taranaki Daily News, 28 January 1933, Page 10

A WEDDING TROUSSEAU

CONTRACT OR PIECEWORK? DRESSMAKER’S CLAIM FAILS. Whether a wedding trousseau of 2o garments was made by contract at so much per garment or at so m uch per day . formed the subject of a disputed claim which came' before Mr. W. HWoodward,' S.M., at the Opunake Court yesterday. Ethel Jenkin, for whom Mr C. O. Edmonds appeared, claimed £3 10s. from Mrs. Mary Phyllis Sinclair as the balance allegedly due for making the trousseau. . Plaintiff’s evidence was to the eitect that in March last defendant had asked her for a price for plain sewing of some garments, and plaintiff gave her a Price which totalled £6 7s. for the 23 articles, quoting 7s. 6d. for a nightdress, ss. 6d. for a ’ princess petticoat, etc. Plaintiff made it clear that that price was for plain sewing with plain material, and that if anything else was wanted the charge would be Bs. 6d. a day, her usual charge. Defendant, however, changed the material, having the trousseau made of silk, crepe de chene, viyella ana winceyette, all trimmed, the whole work taking 33 days. Witness charged for only 24 days, which with material supplied made £lO 10s. She had received £7 on account. The word' “contract” was never mentioned, and witness had definitely mentioned the price at Bs. 6d. per day. The trousseau was produced and identified by witness. Cross-examined, plaintiff said that she did the work at her own home. She admitted that when first discussing the matter the designs of one or two of the garments might have been selected from a book as suitable, and under one or two the material to be used, silk or viyella, had been written. There .was no fixed date for the work to be delivered, but it was delivered on the eve of the wedding. Mrs. Sinclair paid her £7 on July 9 and at the same time objected to the amount charged. The work took 33 days, witness sometimes working 12 or 14 hours a day. Defendant’s version was that in the interview they had selected certain designs from a book and witness had asked for a price for making the trousseau, some articles in winceyette, some in viyella and others in silk, and she had received a price for each article, the price totalling £6 7s. At the beginning of April she handed the material to Mrs. Jenkins, who made no objection. There had been no change in the arrangements or in the material, and the first witness knew of the charge at Bs. 6d. a day was when she received the account on return ing from her honeymoon. She had paid £7, including 21s. for material. She had never heard of a dressmaker charging Bs. 6d. a day to do work at her own home. When a dressmaker charged by the day the worfe was generally done

under supervision at the employer’s home so as to ensure that there was no waste time.- ;No-one but plaintiff and defendant was present at the interviews. To. Mr. Edmonds, witness said that “gussets” might take an extra quarter of an hour.' Though she had never complained' she had. not been quite satisfied with , the work. . . To the. magistrate, defendant said that she had not asked for a price for plain sewing. Plaintiff knew when quoting just what , the patterns and thematenal were. Piecing together would entailmore work, ' but was not necessary as dfendant was' prepared to buy more material. -She: admitted that piecing would save a certain amount, of material. Margaret Cook, a dressmaker of 30 years’ experience, estimated that the value of the work was £2 15s. 6d._ She would not do the work herself as it was merely white seam underclothing work and did riot -require an experienced dressmaker. She would cut out the garments herself and expect a girl to do the work in a fortnight. She considered that in receiving £6 9s. Mrs. Jenkin had been very well paid. To the magistrate she said she coula cut out the whole of the garments m a day and a half. Irene Horn, dressmaker, Opunake, estimated the value of the work done on the garments at J £3 45., at which price she would be prepared to do the work. Cross-examined, witness said she could do the work in ten days, but it was really a junior’s work. The magistrate, in giving judgment for defendant with costs £1 95., said that the onus of proof regarding the allegation of an arrangement at Bs. 6d. per day lay on the plaintiff, and in the face of defendant’s positive denial regarding a contract she could not succeed. Not only from the estimates given by the witnesses but also from the' time in which they said they could have made the garments, he was satisfied that the plaintiff had failed to z prove her case.