New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-03-25
WHAT DRESS SHOULD COST
Responsibility Of Husband for
Wife'S Tailor Bills Involved.
NEW TRIAL IN PECK CASE
Appellate Division Reverses the
Late Justice Truax, but
Bench Is Divided.

The Appellate Division OF the Supreme
Court has just disposed of an appeal in
volving the question of whether Samuel W.
Peck or his wife, Mrs. Josephine Peck. was
responsible for bill Of S5s5 which the wife
incurred at her tailor's for few suits and
other articles incidentally, the case
brought out some expert testimony as to
the sartorial necessities Of a woman who
wants to be we'll dressed.
Samuel w Peck. a rich clothing manu-
facturer. and his wife lived at the Hotel
Ansona. The testimony showed that the
husbands income was $4,000 a year, and
Mrs. Peck said that they lived at the rate
OF $4,000 year Peck used to allow his
wife 500 a month for clothes and S5 a
week for cab fares and lunches.
Mrs. Peck contemplated a trip to Europe.
and to prepare for It she visited the wom-
ans tailoring establishment of one Solo
mon Rosenfeld and ordered these few
simple" things: Brown leather automo-
bile coat. 500; blue and white suit sl35;
blue taffeta coat. $50; pIque suit, $50, and a
white serge suit. $50, making a total OF
500 All these Mrs. Peck had charged "a
her husband. but matrimonial troubles
arose i'm the Peck family, and the husband
refused to pay the bill. The tailor sued
Peck The suit was trled before the late
Justice Truax, who dismissed the action
without submitting to the jury the question
Of the defendants liability.
Counsel for the plaintiff showed that Mr.
and Mrs. Peck were living together wher
the debt was contracted by the wife
Roseufeld had been I'm the employ Of &
Firth avenue tailor where Mrs. Peck haC
dealt. and the plaintiff wanted TO show
that his prices compared with those Of his
former employer, were not too high. Jus
tice Truax said: The court will take ju
dlcial notice that the place Is high priced.
Besides the other allowances to his wifi
to which Peck testified, he said he gave
his wife N0oo additional before she wen
to Europe and that she took with her Z
5000 letter Of credit.
Peck testified further that he though
Mrs. Peck would buy her dresses abroad
with tho $500. But Mrs. Julia Solomon, {
sister OF Mrs Peck, as a witness for Peck
told how mistaken the husband was.
Mrs Solomon helped her sister pack ne
five larC. trunks. and these are some Of th'
things Mrs Peck took with her to Europe
More than thirty dresses, three dozen pairs
4 gloves. twelve hats, two dozen par'
shoes. ninety pairs silk stockings and ter
pairs of riding tights.
Peck had advertisements published il
Paris that hs would not pay any bills o
his wife.
As to tho requirements Of q well dressed
woman. Rosonfeld, the plaintiff, testified
that no we'll dressed woman wore drss
or suit after the style had changed, an'
, that the STYLES changed twice year
spring and fall.
Mandol J. Tlam another expert. testified
that VOL dressed women do not wear 10
more than three or four months the sor
Of suits that Mrs Peck ordered from Ro
senfed
The Appellate Division has reversed tn
decision Of Justice Truax. and has ordere
new trial Of the suit. saying: They Ger
tainIv we're not necessities, strictly speak
| ing. but the question was presented /
| they were not necessities I'm the sens
| that they were articles Of dress suitahl
| for the wife's station in life. his mean
and their mode Of living
Furthermore. IN" higher court hoIh
! that II is for the husband n show tina
the wife was amply provided for, to pa,
| Tor the articles instead Of having then
! charged"
The court decided on the difficult ques
| ton, Justice Scott Justice Clarke an
Justice Miller deciding as above, Will
| Presiding Justice Ingraham and Jusu'
| I.aughIin held that Rosenfelds bill shoul'
he charged to Mrs. Peck, il being show
that Peck had amply provided for hi