The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-11-01
A Rattle Over n Bonnet.
From the New York World

From the New ofk W oriuI
descendant OF Sarah Jennings, Ouch
nss o{ Marlborough. has just won battle
in the London courts OF more interest, per-
hans. 10 the fair women OF our own time
thsp Blenheim or Nialplaquet. Lord ana
Iadr Churchill being casually, and for
nuclt tina, appears wantonly ana Wl!iuliy
in London out Of the season, resolved TO
make the best Of their situation, and went
~ The PrirccsS's Theatre to see the play OF
I-nrIe Toms Cabin at matinee. Lady
Churchill was in afternoon dress, and as
she was abou, TO enter the stalls with her
husband the attendants requested her to
take off her bonnet. This she lmmedi-
ottIv did. and. holding the bonnet in her
hand. passed on TO her place. At this the
MANAGER. Mr.. Gnoch, came upon the scene,
oud declared that the bonnet must be
left with the attendant. Whereupon Lord
Churchill! declined TO 60 into the stalls and
demanded his Il shiillngs back, Lady
Churchill being unwilling to expose her
charming headgcar TO the wreck OF ribbons
md the crush Of straw in the waiting-room.
The manager refused 10 refund, aud his
iratc patrons thereupon departed, losing the
sDcctace of "Unce Toms Cabin" but pre-
serving The bonnet. Inasmuch as nothing
had been said about this strange taboo OF
honncts at matinee when the tickets were
bouoht Lord Churchill brought suit,
not OF course so much to recover bis
Il shlings rs to bring the people
oH the theatre to book for their imperti-
nencc. Both parties were duly represented
by counsel The barristcr who appeared
or the manager called attention to copy
OF q notice nut up in the boX-oiice-" Bon
nets allowed in the dreSs-circie and
81 ia ...@ -, hn dor
stood to be disallowed everywhere else.
Lord ChurchilPS lawyer admitted the notice,
but ridiculed the inference drawn from it.
The County Judge was OF opinion that the
prohibition was nevertheless inferrlhle.
Then the counsel for the noble plaintiff
asked how the prohibition to wear bonnets
could be extended by inference against the
carrying OF bonnets in the hand. The
Judge inquired if gentlemen were allowed
to carry their hats. and being aftirmatiyely
answered, replied that he could see no reason
why ladies should not be allowed to do the.
same thing. The counsel for the manager re-
piled that silk hats or Derbys could be put
under the seats, while bonnetS could not,
and that ladies might Inconvenience their
nclghbors on either side by holding their
bOLnets IN their laps almost As much as their
nciyhbOrS in the rear by wearing them Oh
.hcir heads. The Court most diScreetly
thought this much more likely TO inconve-
nience the bonnets than the public. The
counsel suggested that the decision OF this
case would be an important precedent TO the
associated managers Of London, and solemn
~ warned the Judge that il he was not very
particular in his ruling ladies would next
claim the right to take umbrellas into
their stalls. Even this alarming allusion
10 n possible invasion OF the London
theatres by Sairey Camp and Mrs. Harris
failed 10 disturb the justice, and he ordered
Judgment for Lord Churchill, permitting
an appeal, however, provided the managers
interested would pay all the costs. 1t does
not appear that the appeal has been taken,
and we may assume therefore that Lord and
Lady Churchill have established great
principle. The cry OF "Top-knot come
down" has been often raised, and with
good reason, By afflicted spectators in pub
lie places of amusement whose view OF the
stage was eifcctually ecipsed by some
port.ntouS creation OF the miiner'S art
directly in front OF them. But there is
vital difference between telling lady
that she must not wear her bonnet, TO the
annoyance OF other people, and taking it out
OF her possession without her consent. AS
the London Truth judiciously observes:
1.-The same rule might be applied to any
other article Of dress, and in the end we
should have 10 catch colds whilst witnessing
4 play. because our garments bad been
stripped of our backs by wreckers." The
perSistency OF the managers is to be eX-
planned by the fact that they expected this
new regulation 10 result in a pecuniary adj
vantage TO the theatre, their notion being
that the business of taking charge OF ladies'
fashionable bonnets would be decidedly
rcInunerative.