ASCOT FROCK

Wairarapa Times-Age, 9 May 1938, Page 5

ASCOT FROCK

SUIT BY DRESSMAKERS. An Ascot dress is not a necessity for an “infant daughter” of a wealthy family. This, in effect, was said by counsel in Westminster County Court when Norah Crampton, Limited, of Davies Street, W., sued Mrs Sylvia Robertson, formerly Miss Sylvia Hawley, of De Walden Street, W., for £5l 15s, alleged to be due for a 23gns Ascot frock, hat, parasol and other items. Mr Rockell, for the dressmakers, said that infancy was pleaded in defence. Mrs Robertson’s late father had denied the liability, and his estate was administered in bankruptcy with liabilities of £ 18,000.

Mrs Robertson, who was unmarried when the orders were given, had her own flat in town.

Judge Moore-Cann then asked: “Is an Ascot dress a necessity?” Betty Hattersley, a saleswoman, said that Mrs Robertson—who was married at St George’s, Hanover Square, in July, 1936—t01d her that her father was giving her the Ascot frock, and said 'that she was paying 7gns for the hat and parasol. Mr Thomas, for Mrs Robertson, submitted that it could not be said that a hat and parasol to match the dress were a necessity for an infant. He called evidence that she was born bn February 27, 1917.

Judgment was given for Crampton’s for £9 19s 6d and costs for the hat, parasol and renovation of the Ascot dress. The judge said he could niake no order for the Ascot frock and other items.