Los Angeles herald., 1909-04-10
WOMAN DEFENDS
Her MOTHER IN
JUSTICE COURT
DAUGHTER OF DRESSMAKER IS
ATTORNEY
CUSTOMER SUES TO RECOVER
HER MONEY
Cores, PIeats, Panels and Other Tech
nlcaI Terms Puzzle Judge, Who
Continues the Case for
Month

! Cores, pleats, panels and other terms
familiar to the feminine mind, but cal
culated to make the brain of an ordin-
airy man resemble an omelet, were ex-
pressed with prodigality in Justice
stephens court room yesterday while
Miss Lulu L. Kepke, 1905 South Grand
avenue, sought to impress on the court
| the business of her claim for $102
against Nine. De We're Drake, a dress
maker at 740 South Broadway.
! Miss Kepke declared a dress ordered
| from Nine. Drake was not made ac-
cording to specifications. Nine. Drake
as stoutly contended, through her
daughter, an attorney, Miss Inez
Drake, that Miss Kepke was dlssatls-
fed with the style she herself had Sc
lected, and was seeking to place the
responsibility upon others to their dis
credit and her own pecuniary advant-
age.
Responding to questions by her at
torney, H. H. Roser, Miss Kepke SAID
she purchased q $15.75 dress pattern
and $4.75 worth of lining in October;
that Nine. Drake offered to make the
dress and furnish trimmings for $32;
that the dress was completed and the
money paid, and that she has refralned
from wearing the costume ever since
because of it's imperfect fit. On account
amount of her expenditures, and in adj
dition asked for $50 to pay for the
embarrassment and annoyance she has
experienced, to say nothing of six visits
to the dressmaking establishment to
have the dress fitted.
Coat Is Too Small
1.-THE coat was too short and too small
across the shoulders; the skirt was
entirely too large. Partisan panels were
not put on, as promised; the braid
was not according to samples shown
me, and the loops on the cuffs did not
match. The panels were to be faced
with satin, but to obviate this the
panels were stitched at the bottom and
did not flare"
"What is the difference between a
stitch and a panel?" asked the justice
hesitatingly.
The women among the spectators
smiled commiseratingly, and the wit
ness herself regarded the court with
evident pity.
his client to don the dress, but this
was objected to by the young woman's
attorney.
THAT dress has been mussed up and
is out of shape" she declared, and the
placing of the exhibit on the PLAINTIFFS
form was ordered delayed until later
date.
with a woman's intuition of what is
best calculated to aggravate another
member of her sex, the young woman
attorney began the cross examination
of Miss Kepke with the question, How
old are you?"
Miss Kepke hesitated. The decorum
of the court prevented what might have
been regarded a proper retort under
other conditions. Then Miss Kepke's
attorney saved his client from further
embarrassment by entering an objec-
ton on the ground that her age was
immaterial, and this objection was gal
lantly sustained by the court.
Young Woman Attorney Accused
Then for the first time a suspicion
that the young woman attorney was
leading a sort of female Jekyll and
Hyde existence developed in the minds
of those in the court room, when Miss
Kepke declared Miss Drake was none
other than the dressmaker herself,
that she had been introduced to her
as Nine. Drake and had given her the
order for the dress.
"That is not so; Nine. Drake is my
mother" protested the attorney.
Mime. Drake is ill and unable to be
in court"
Miss Drake then propounded a hy-
pothetical question to Miss Kepke.
Are you in the habit" she asked,
"of buying material, having it made
up, taking it home before it is fin
ished showing it to the neighbors, be-
coming dissatisfied and returning it?"
Justice stephens sustained another
objection to this mass of queries and
the case was continued until o'clock
May IL.