From The Times: February 22, 1924
The hearing was resumed at Marlborough Street Police Court of the summons against Messrs Selfridge and Co, Limited of Oxford Street, W, for selling a pair of women’s stockings to which the false trade description of silk was applied.
The prosecution was at the instance of the National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers’ Association, who alleged that a pair of stockings bought at the defendants’ stores for 5s 11d, and advertised as “wonderful value in silk stockings”, were composed of a vegetable substance — viscose.
The defendants, immediately the matter was drawn to their notice, withdrew the whole stock, explaining that they had been misled by the very close resemblance of the stockings to silk.
An expert witness for the prosecution was shown stockings. He said that the leg of one pair was extremely inferior silk “heavily loaded with tin”. Another he described as made of pods of cotton pulp treated with resin — a process originating in Germany.
Advertisement
![Looms for making silk stockings in the United States c 1925](https://cdn.statically.io/img/www.thetimes.com/imageserver/image/%2Fmethode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F1102678e-2dbb-46d9-bd47-0c43a53c4871.jpg?crop=4920%2C3876%2C0%2C0)
The defence called Mr Edward Pratt, textile chemist and analyst, who said that the pair of stockings produced could easily be mistaken by an expert for silk, without chemical examination. They were very deceptive.
Miss Lilian Mary Snow, a buyer for Messrs Selfridge, said the stockings in question came from Saxony and were described as pure silk hose. She had had a long experience as a silk buyer and was convinced that the 100 dozen pairs in question were silk. The hearing was again adjourned.
● George Needham, 26, clerk, of Hanover Street, W, was charged at Bow Street Police Court with being found by night at the Essex Hall, Strand, with intent to commit a felony. The caretaker, Mr E A Twiggs, stated that at 10.30pm on Wednesday he found the defendant seated in the kitchen eating his (the witness’s) supper. When asked what he was doing the defendant made no reply, but went on eating. When the witness went towards him he clutched a table-knife, and the witness then locked him in the room and went for the police. On his return with a constable the door was found to be barricaded and had to be forced open. After a struggle the constable got the knife from the accused and arrested him. He appeared strange in his manner, and was remanded for a doctor’s report.
Explore 200 years of history as it appeared in the pages of The Times, from 1785 to 1985: thetimes.co.uk/archive