court that these gaping crowds of Peeping Toms obstructed the access to his store. Thereupon the court, while considering that tradesmen had a right to make their windows as attractive as possible, even though thereby they drew crowds and created a bustle, yet held that such use of their windows must be decent and reason able, and that highly sensational exhibitions must be tabooed; so they very ungallantly ordered the young ladies to finish their dressing in some less exposed position.1 It is difficult to comprehend how this decision was given by a New York court, as none of the judges in that State are over sixty. Perhaps the counsel for the defence neg lected to request the court to take " a view; " if he had, we think he would have secured a verdict for his fair clients as easily as did the Athenian Hyperides when he rent the robe of the lovely Phryne and exposed her beautiful bosom to her judges. Talking about dress, which we are told "has a moral effect upon the conduct of mankind," — for, as dear old Goldsmith saith, "an emperor in his nightcap would not meet with half the respect of an emperor with a crown," — an English judge, not long ago, had to consider the proper way of put ting on a sash, when it was used in helping to eke out the scantiness of the other gar ments. Miss Fay Templeton, of the Gaiety Theatre, London, obtained an interim in junction restraining the manager and lessee of the theatre from preventing her playing Fernand in " Monte Christo," and keeping him from employing any one else to take that part. There was a contract that she should act as Fernand; but the manager attempted to justify his refusal on the ground that Miss Fay wore her dress improperly. The lady denied the charge, and said she wore the dress with which the manager had supplied her, that when the Lord Chamberlain (the highly and mighty official who gets §10,000 a year for looking after these and divers other matters) objected to the costume as 1 Elias v. Sutherland, 18 Abb. (N. Y.) N. Cas. 126.
being rather loud, she had asked for another, but had not got it. Sashes, however, were provided, and she insisted that she had always worn one. The management replied that she did not wear the sash properly; the fair plaintiff rejoined she did, and this was the important question for the learned judge to decide.1 The judge could easily have settled the point by requesting Miss Templeton to put on the dress and the scarf, so that the court could see how she looked. This was done in the Brighton (Eng.) County Court a decade or so ago, when a dress maker sued a lady for work done. Mrs. Taylor had refused to pay, alleging that the dressmaker had spoiled her garment. The reporters record the following passage-atarms during the trial : — "INDIGNANT PLAINTIFF. I did make the dress properly, but the lady has no natural figure what ever. She said she was suffering with her liver, and could not be squeezed; and how could I make her look like a Venus when it was all wadding? "IRATE DEFENDANT. I did not want you to make it tight; I like my dresses loose. •' PLAINTIFF. You should say how very deformed your amis are. '• DEFENDANT (excitedly). I am not deformed. I am a better figure than you. I have no defor mity. My husband is in court; ask him. '• PLAINTIFF. Will you allow me to try the dress on in court? "DEFENDANT. Yes : before all these gentlemen. "His HONOR. You must put the dress on, and I must see it." The parties retired to the solicitor's robingroom (solicitors exeunt omnes, we hope). After the plaintiff had put on the dress, the judge was informed by a bailiff that she refused to come into court. His Honor therefore went into the robing-room, and on his return said the work was very indiffer ently done, and gave a verdict for the defendant. These cases bring up sad thoughts of the 1 35 Alb. L. Journ. 262.
