The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-11-19
From the New Orleans Delta.
A SUIT mi A NONSUTT.

OR 4 BUsTLE ABOUT A PETrIcoAr.
A suit was brought before Justice Bright by the
interesting lady who keeps the segar slop ON Pow.
dras street. against another fair lady, who detain-
ed certain articles of dress belonging to the plain.
Tiff. Among other items ia PLAINTIFFS bill were
two nigt caps of the value of four bits, two grass
skirts, six bus,les. three pair of stockings, one
pair OF unmenilOnables, and one petticoat. This
attorney for the plaintiff suggested that the ouan.
tiy of bustles in the plaintiffs wardrobe. bore ,o
her other garments about the same proportion tba,
the item of sack did 10 the bread and other items
in the account of Dame Quickly versus Sir
John Falstaff." Defendants attorney. takino ,
note Of the case cited, asked for The volume anil
page.
The plaintiff succeeded in establishing The value
OF all the above articles, except the petlicoat.
which constituted, as the attorneys said, the
ceGata quesfi0 of the case. To such a decree
was the dispute carried. ON this point. that we
were painfully approhensive that The precious gar
ment would be torn to pieces by the respective dis.
puianis. 10 end The dispute, the Judge called
on a lady, who happened to be in court to testify
on the subject OF the value. etc., of petticoats.
Mrs. Jones deposed that the value of petticoat
depended on its quality and kind ; that these were
as various as the condition and circumstances of
ladies'; that ladies who wore fine silks and bareees
generally had petticoats of fine lawn, with lace
trimmings; Others who did not aspire above bal
"""eo wv iehcii caIlcOeS wore pettIcOatS OF
Jaconet; others, whose every day dress was of
cheap calico, with a French painted muslin for
sundays, were satisfied with cotton pctlicoats, a
smiling a yard ; there were others, who wore only
cheap American calicoes all the time, and if they
mad PetticOats at ali they were of Lowell manu-.
taclure. She did not know the condition of the
plaIntiff, and therefore could not say what kind of
%pettIcoat she was entitled to wear. The witness
o,eing Introduced TO the plaintiff, examined her
ufess and pronounced it shilling calico, at which
me plaintiff turned up her indignant nose, and de-
cared 1T was no such thing, the dress cost her
Three good bits a yard at Holmes !"
Dsiendants counsel, who had been for some
ume deeply engaged in pursuit of an idea, here
put IN a question, over which he smiled with The
most parental suIicitude.
Does the quality Of a lady's p~etticoat always
correspond with the quality OF her dress ?'
WitneSs-" No"
Now if the learned gentleman had pro6ted nv
te tate OF MIR. Phunkey. in the celebrated case Of
BaFdeii Uersus Pick " lex !" and stopped here. he
might have made a point in the case but EN-.
Ooluened by his success, he put the additional
question:
10 not ladies sometimes wear fine petticoa,s
and plain dresses 2"
Never" replied the witness, with great CON.
noence and energy. "There may be some who
Suck a little lace on To their skirts. but sucL n
Jung as a lady's wearing a petlicoat, which is
concealed from view, finer than her dress, tina,
every body sees, | do not regard possible"
The defendants attorney here dismissed the
Witness. and the Judge proceeded 10 render judg.
!nent in favor of plaintiff, for the value Of all ar.
ucIes claimed, barring the peiiicoat. for which he
rendered a n0nsuit; s0 that there will have to be
another trial to brine IN the petticnat