Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-11-22
HE WAS CALLED A DUDE.
A Queer Suit in a Montreal Court

| The recorders court has rarely been filled
with such a large assemblage of dudes, law
students and policemen as on the occasion OF
the trial Of George Bricault, law student, on
the charges brought by Mr.. Allan Hamilton, OF
the court house, Of unlawfully lettering and
obstructing the footpath, and further for call
Ing him dude, says the Montreal Star. The
| plaintiff, who possessed the services of Mr..
Drscoll as counsel, was certainly an object of
great attention in court. He was attired in a
tight-fttng black frock coat and black pants.
wore regulation CATERS stani-up collar OF con-
| siderable dimensions, while his tOut-ensemble
was completed by a handsome black silk hat
which he nervously handled during his exam
ination. On the whole his 'get-up' from an
English point of view, was not very frequently
| seen on the streets of American cities. After
Mr.. DriscOll had laid the case before
the court, the complainant took the stand and
recited his troubles TO the somewhat sympa-
| thizng and jOcuar listeners. 1t appeared
| that during the past summer Mr. Hamilton
had been subjected to considerable annoyance
and insult from group of young men who
| generally congregated in the vicinity of the
government buildings on st. Gabriel street.
The particular grievance, however, which he
desired to lay before the court occurred on FRI
| day, the Goth ult. When quietly proceeding
| along the street he encountered three young
men. and had walked short distance when
he overheard the remark "There goes the
dude" Believing the insult was meant for him.
| self. he deliberately retraced his steps, to
observe number of the group sprnglng
| through q window into the office OF the govern
ment buildings. Suspecting that he had dis
| covered the offender, he entered, and from a
conversation which occurred with the clerks
learned that the guilty party was Bricault. In
so far as he was concerned he was unable to
account for this act of hostility. except that it
was undertaken through a spirit of envy or
jealousy; again, perhaps it was due to the OBJ
lection OF the accused to plaintiffs wearing Q
white helmet The action OF the clerk who
disappeared when the insult occurred, he could
only aScrbe to fear.
A cross-eXaIiI.ation of the witness was then
made 10y Mr. I4cclaiTe, who acted as counsel for
the defendant
What do you understand by the term
'dude: asked the lawyer.
''0h, bat YOU see. aw. aw | am not here to
give definitions. bat to relate facts
his reply on the part OF Nj. Hamilton created
much meIr;'ncnt. even the court being conf
PEELED 10 smile.
When silence was restored his honor desired
/ to know tie exact meaning of the term.
After little thought the witness said that
in his opinion dude was q loud, vulgarly
cverdressed being, WHO iruitlessly attempts to
! inrersonate a born gentleman. His walk was
always the key to his identity. The dude usu-
ally ambied along in an absurd and ridiculous
manner. the effect being produced by the style
I'D which he extended his arms
Mr. Chas. DOucCt, of the crown office. in the
course of his evidence. thought that dude was
not a cOntemptuOuS word.
Another witness testified that there was moth
ing in the appearance OF Mr. Hamilton to enti-
tie him to such a compliment. He believed that
the plaintiff dressed as an English gentleman in
every sense of the word.
Mr. Fred. Cols0n. OF the Gazette. was next
called to the box. He related his experience OF
dudes in general. They were, he believed,
class of male beings " no paid undue and unne-
cessary attention to their outward appearance,
and TO be called one is certainly decided eX-
preston OF contempt. In regard to the ques-
tion as to whether Mr.. Hamilton would pass for
dude, he declined to reply. The smile the
witness wore. however, lett the court to draw
his own inference.
After the examination of several other wit
nesses his honor delivered his judgment. He
dismissed the case. and quoted eminent authori-
ties on which his decision was based. 1t had
been clearly proven that the defendant had not
been guilty Of lettering or obstructing the foot
path, from the fact that he seated in an open
window. Mr.. Hamilton who appeared to take
the result bravely, will probably carry the case
to higher court.