, 1870-06-03

-.. H,slLu
The defendant refused to pay this bill, con-
tending that the prices charged were e1o1bi-
tant. Tie case waa referred to an auditor,
Mr. William J. Forssith, who reported IN favor
of the plaintiff, in ths sum OF 81, 1,263.78-
Neither party beng satiafed, it came before
jury, and the trial began On Tuesday afternoon
Of lsst roef. L. ". HoWes and E. B. Smith
apgeared for the plainttd, and H. D. Hyde
and II: F. Dickinson, Jr., for the defendant
NJ. Hores, in opening. claimed that the
plaintiff stands at the highest point a. d1ess-
mAier in this city, and this work is Of very
superior quality that abe il IN arfiste In her
line, commanding the highest prices. and en-
Of the ceantry; and that ahe was entitled to
recover the rates charged IN the account
The first witness called was Hrs Elynt,
whose testimony occupied about half day,
md presented ali the leading facts Of the
enased Boston I ans for 9Ad aeen
yeaxs; that M1s.. Coolidge had employed her
PTonpt1y; t5at psss she asua{iy s'':a smployed a
About twenty girls Who deceived wages
bill vhe1e ahe had charged foE trimming, the
rste Per day WIS 45, and thai Mrs.. Coolidge was
aware Of the fact that for nearly Ill the articles
specified prices had been Substantially sgreed
upon n advance; that her rule in furnishing
Npurchased at retail; II 1t Wholesale, to as-
certain the retail price, and charge th4t; that
thin work Was delivered the Saturday before
the Jubilee, and the bill presented for p*S-
ment toon after; that LII. Coolidge oncecs11ed
to see her about the mstter; md threatened to
deec1ibed tho several garments in detail, and
claimed that no one in Boston Was capable Of
making word Of equal quality. Tba ns1t pre-
v1ous bill was introduced in evidence.
On the cxoss-e1amineaina the- defendant IN
troduced Ill previous bills paid BY him to hsr,
az well - somewhat ,spicy letter Ndttan to
I1s. Coolidge b. Mrs. fiynt, after this hill
vas presented As to several Of It's dresses,
the paintin mid she could give no idea Of The
time spent upon them but that aha had hxed
roun q sons for the work, md that i vas IN
make the plain part OF dress, the original en-
tries IN her books Of the time aetnadly occu-
pied having been ali destroyed During tba
croes-e1anlnation Mrs. F1ynt occasionally lost
her temper. and indu]ged in some severe re-
marks, much to the ediheation of those pres
en1; several ct her employees were then
called, Who testified as to her method Of bust
meas and style OF sofk, and also to VARIOUS in
texvleMa with tho pl4intiH about the psyuaut
o1 the bill, stating thxt he had alws7s been
Nuhng to pay the bill Il the charges should be
maze reasonable md satisfactory, md At one
hnce he offered to furnish money on account.
No othez Witnesses were called by the pIain-
M to Hubstantiate the prices charged, though
three persons, noFe or 1ess intimately aaaoci.
9ted With her. testified rs to the time required
70 do tho WORK, each Of whom, however, on
The c1oss-e1Amination, said she was unabls to |
give An opinion a. to tho length Of time It |
would take to make any particular part OF !
garment or dress -separ1telY IhFee mef-
chants we're called by the p1ainth - experts |
upon values of materials furnished, but their |
testimony chiefly tendsd to prove that no mar
ket value could be attached to many Of the |
goods used in the dresses
In opening tho case for the defence, Mr. ]
Dickinson stated that the defendant WAS IN |
court, not from choice, but BY compulsion |
that be had sought 70 .yo.d 6essreeable and
to pay literally for this work bnt now, when
compelled to sppeAr IN cout4, he objected to
pav anything moro than the actual value OF
The srticles fu1Dnhed, but that be hAd no DE-
sire to avoid the payment OF al that might be
Justly due; that the statements Of the plaintin
~ to IN agreed price, and knowledge by The
defendant OF tbs rates charged in tha bill, /
we're untrue; that the defendant would show
the 1uIJ that the 7tes were c1orMtxnt sud ex-
seFe11 hrht-claas &eea1aAkefs and Enatctauts
ii the city.
Mrs. F. Mcclellan, Of Springfield street, be-
Ing called, testified that the onttre work, for
which the sum Of tf,0s6 WIS charged IN the
bili, could he dome IN ~ days, sad Wss not
worth moro than s1ss; Mrs. A. II. Ha1s, 81
Winter street, that the work WAS worth not
syeI e4s; Mr.: 4. 7; Smith oocuP,ns foonas
worth not moFa than A256; MlH Lord, thsper-
son IN charge Of Mn. Smiths - girts, that The
entire work eeuld b 1c0s IN - dasu; md
Miss Holren IN chAlge OF work n HI 4 Car
.as'&, S5 Temple p2aoa tlzss ~ aoAise ias