PARIS GOWNS IN COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8092, 24 April 1906, Page 4

PARIS GOWNS IN COURT.

For some time yesterday (says the Loudon "Daily Chronicle" of February litli) the Chief Justice's Court resembled more a tryiiig-on room of a great dressmaking establishment than a Court of law. Some of the finest govs that Paris supplies to ladies in English society, were brought into Court on .wicker frames and in cardboard boxes, .handled lovingly and scrutinisingly by lady witnesses or learned couusel, held up to the full view of the special jury, and then allowed to hang over the hacks of counsels' seats while the Court hoard the circumstanoes in which, as the plaintiff: contends, they had been ruthlessly seized, packed up with commonplace articles, and sent to Harrod's for storage. • The motion was one for alleged ties pass. The plaintiff was Mrs Bertha Shelley, the wife of Mr Norman Shelley;., who is at present abroad, and the defendant was Sir Charles H. Ross, an old Cambridge Blue. Mrs Shelley sought to recover damages from Sir Charles on the ground that he had wrongfully entered her premises, broken open a cabinet, and removed her valuable dresses and other goods. Sir Charles admitted the acts complained of, but pleaded thrtt he had the right to do what he had done.

Mrs Shelley was the lessee of a flat, No. 7, Park Lane, Which she held for a term of twenty-one years. (She also Owns a country house, and has a separate estate.) Towards the end of 190-1, wishing to go abroad with her son, who had met with an accident at Marlborough, she let the flats, through Messrs Collins and Collins, of South Audley Street, to Lady Boss, who entered into possession, and Who was joined by Sir Charles on his return from America.

Tile flat consisted of reception roms and four bedrooms on the fifth floor, a servant's bedroom on the sixth floor, and a man servant's ."bedroom in the basement. But, in addition to the 21 years' lease of these rooms, Mrs Shelley had taken an additional room on the sixth floor, which she rented by the week, for the: purpose of storing her spare dresses and hats when she went abroad or -mas..staying in the country. This room, she contends, was not let to Lady Ross, but was retained as her , own storeroom, and 1 was left locked np. I But Sir Charles had the room broken I open, and found a large assortment of costly Parisian dresses hanging under coverings. These were bundled up with carpets and other articles, and sent to Hiirrods for storage, and Mrs Shelley now claimed for the damage done to them.

The defendant contended that room 27 was included in the flat which he ranted, and that this was implied by the letters of the agents.,On the other ill's Shelley reliod on the inventory taken by the agents, which showed that it was not ko included, and was not in her lease". There was also an armoury cabinet in the dinning-room, and Sir Charles had this opened also, and removed (Mrs Shelley's books. •This survey: of the tacts was submitted yesterday by Mr. C. i'\ Gill, K.C., counsel for Mrs. Shelley, and the latter, wearing a handsome blue walking costume and beaver hat. bore out her counsel's statement. She added that on her return from the continent slie brought with her two charming Paquin creations, a white chiffon and laoo evening d;oss, which cost.3o guineas, and a I)lack chiffon evening dies', with gold emLiyidtry, the oost of which w#i about 25 guineas. These she placed'with her other dresses in her own room at the flat, and until tho. tenancy of jSir Charles Boss expired she lived at the Hyde Park Hotel. Among tho dresses which sho left m-tlie'room originally was ono bj Callot Soeuia, the price of which was 52 "guineas, a postly Maison Rose ecru and-black evening dress, an 18-guineas bine cloth bolero and skirt, a Mack satin opera cloak, with Maltese lace (30 guineas),' a Pompadour silk dress, a white accordeon-

plepted silk evening dress, and several vafoable bats. tVhen Mrs. Shelley explained, as the drqjses were slujwiijn, CaurJ;,., that they, were badly danjagSl* the Lord Chief Justice asked if the material could not bo vUsed for making up other dresses, and the reply was emphatically, "Oh deair no.'-' She added that the news of tlm damage reached her just at the begimutijLgi tho.LoiKkm.season-, when she wanted her frooks very badly. Mr. Shearman, K.C. (for the defendant) : Are you really claiming £2OO for the damage done to these dresses?— Certainly. She admittcvl that the Callot dress had made several journeys in her dress-trunk, and on this Mr. Sheannan suggested that it might have been damaged by the Customs officials. The Lorcl Chief Justice: "Oh, no; they never open boxes. They say, 'Havo you any cigars?' and when you reply 'No,' tliey say 'Pass on.'" (Laughter.) Counsel's droll comment on this was that his own experience differed from his Lordship's. Further cross-examination by Mr. Shearman was directed to showing that the dresses had not suffered very great damage, and were not, as Mrs. Shelley contended, unfit for a lady to wear. With regard to hats, one of which was described as a : battered straw and an- ' other as of the soup-plato variety, oounsel asked Mrs. Shelley if she really claimed 10 guineas for old hats, which had been worn so much that they now seomed worthless. Her reply was that she bought hats to wear, but they had to be replaced when damaged, and that the cost of the new ones would be considerably more than the amount she was claiming for the damaged one®. She was awarded £3O damages.