MANNEQUIN IN COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 179, 30 June 1937, Page 10

MANNEQUIN IN COURT.

£875 AIINK COAT WORN. AATTTICISAIS FROAI THE BENCH. Female occupants of the gallery craned, and a woman barrister donned horn-rimmed glasses, when, to the accompaniment of Judicial witticisms, a slender mannequin paraded in court in the King’s Bench Division, London, displaying a mink coat, valued at £875.

The coat was the subject of a case in which Emil Horovitz and Company, furriers, of Vienna, claimed £SOO from George M. Garcia, of Melbourne. Garcia, who bought the garment for his wife, counter-claimed a £375 deposit, alleging that the coat was not made from Esquimaux Bay skins of tire finest and darkest quality. WOMEN INTERESTED. Mrs Garcia, beautifully gowned in black, attracted the attention of every woman present when counsel stated that she bought £4OO worth of furs in Vienna. Justice Sir Rigby Swift instructed the mannequin to enter the witnessbox, saying that lie supposed he should not look at the witness before she was sworn. Counsel : But Your Honour is looking at the coat. “Don’t you make any mistake about that,” retorted Sir Rigby Swift. ‘1 don’t know why anybody would ;Jv, £BOO for a coat without the contents.” Counsel said that Garc/ia, to ensure that he would obtain the identical skins, had signed them on trie hack. The furriers, in accordance with Viennese custom, had sent Mrs Garcia a bouquet. She did not try on the coat on the appointed day in London, because she was “slimming.” She and her mother later rejected the coat. Sir Righv Swift, after remarking that the mannequin was much more agreeable to look at than a paper pattern, added, “The Pencil could not afford such coats.”

The case was eventually settled privately on terms which were not disclosed. Judgment was given accordingly “COAT GOING BACK TO FIRM.”

Mrs Garcia afterwards told the Daily Mail : “I have not got the coat. I must be unique among women in turning down a mink coat, hut it is going back to the firm.”