THE COST OF COURT UNIFORMS.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1930, 1 May 1880, Page 2

THE COST OF COURT UNIFORMS.

Mr Justice Lindley, one of the Judges of the Common Pleas Division in London, has tried the case of “ Goody and another v Lumley.” The plaintiffs in this case were naval and military tailors in Clifford street, Bond street, and the defendant, Mr Augustus Saville Lumley, was an artist. About the beginning of the year 1877 the defendant was appointed Marshal of the Ceremonies to her Majesty. The plaintiffs supplied him with the dress and undress uniform to be worn in his office, and the price •barged for these articles, with some few other things, and also some interest on account of credit given, was now sued for. The total sum claimed was £298 3s 6d, and the defendant paid into court £221195, and denied hie liability to pay the balance, £73 10s 6d. Mr Digby Seymour, Q 0., and Mr Lumley Smith, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Marriott, Q. 0., and Mr Douglas Walker for the defendant. In opening the case it was stated that the dispute would be whether the prices charged for the defendant’s uniforms were fair and reasonable. The price for a full-dress coatee, richly embroidered with gold lace, was £127 10s; but then the plaintiffs paid for the bullion alone used on the coat £6B. The price for the undress coatee was £39 12s, the cost price for the bullion used on it being £ls 15s; and then there were the trousers and the other things. The learned counsel said that he understood that the charge for a cocked hat was to be but when the cost of ostrich feathers and so on was taken into account, he believed that those who disputed the charge would be themselves “knockedinto a cooked hat.” (A laugh.) The plaintiffs themselves and several other naval and military West-end tailors were called to make out the case for the plaintiffs. The substance of their evidence was that the prices which were charged to the defendant were fair and reasonable. The defendant’s counsel crossexamined these witnesses upon various points but he himself called no witnesses. Mr Marriott, however, addressed the jury for the defendant, saying that it appeared upon the evidence that as to the undress coat, the cost of the materials was £2O 9s fid, £2 19s for making, £1 Is for fittirg and trying on, and 10s fid for cab hire. The defendant h--d paid into court on this item, £29 3s 2d. and this sum, it was submitted, would afford the plaintiffs a reasonable amount of profit. For cashmere breeches the cost of materials was £1 8s 2d, making 10s fid.; the defendant had paid into court £2 8j 3d, and the plaintiff.asked £3 16s. Knee and shoe buckles coat the plaintiffs £2 4s fid, the defendant paid into Court £2 13s fid, and the sum claimed was £3 9s. As to the blue doeskin trowsers, the materials cost £4 10s fid, the making was 10s, the sum paid into Court was £6 4s 4i, and the sum claimed was £7 9s fid. As to the cocked hat of which they had heard, the cost to the plaintiffs was £4 10s, there was £7 3s lOd paid into Court, and the amount claimed was £8 Bs. As to the full-dress coat, the materials cost £72 14s fid, and the making brought the amount up to £BO. The sum paid into Court was £B3 12s, and the sum charged was £l3O in all, including 30s for the buttons. He submitted to the jury that the amounts paid into Court were sufficient to afford the plaintiffs a reasonable profit upon the transaction. Mr Justice Lindley, in summing up, told the jury that there appeared to be some charge for interest upon interest due, but no one was entitled to cnarge compound interest without having a special agreement to that effect, but common ordinary interest could be charged if the customer had notice to that effect. The jury would consider whether the charges of the plaintiffs were in their opinion reasonable, and whether they would allow the plaintiffs interest or not. The jury, having considered the matter for a few minutes, found a verdict for the defendant, saying that they thought that sufficient money had been paid into Court. His Lordship gave judgment in accordance with that finding.