FIXED CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 14, 16 July 1931, Page 7

FIXED CHARGES

FOII HAIR WAVING

PRICE-CUTTING ALLEGED

HAIRDRESSERS' DISPUTE

Undercutting of a fixed minimum price for a permanent wave was alleged against M. Berman, hairdresser, of Lambton quay, at the Magistrate's Court to-day, by the Wellington Ladies' Hairdressers' Association, Incorporated, which claimed £100 on the ground that ho had committed a breach of the association's rules. The plaintiffs stated that Berman, who was a member of the association, had on 20th March, 1931, permanently waved the hair of Beatrice M. Donaghy for £1 10s, the fixed association price for the work being £1 15s. • * On 25th August, 1930, said Mr. J. Meltzer, who appeared for the plaintiffs,' the ladies' hairdressers decided to form an association. Practically every concern in .the Wellington district doing ladies' hairdressing joined the association. Tiie defendant with others had signed an agreement whereby they were bound by certain rules regarding prices to be charged.for different types of ladies' hairdressing. At the meeting it was decided that those prices should rule for twelve months. The motion to that effect was actually seconded by the defendant himself. It was also decided that the penalty for a breach of the rules in connection with the minimum prices would be a fine of £100.DOCKET FOE £1 10s. The association commenced to function, and as far as was known, quite satisfactorily. Early in March, however. Mrs. Donaghy, who did cleaning work for Mrs. Stamford, another member of the association; called at the defendant's rooms and asked a girl there if she could have hor hair waved. She told her that all she could afford was 30s. The girl went downstairs to see Mr. Berman, and he immediately gave permission for the work to be done at that price. When the work was completed Mrs. Donaghy was given a docket showing the price at £1 10s. It was admitted, said Mr. Meltzor, that it was attempted to get the necessary evidence against the defendant, but there was nothing underhand or "dirty" about getting that evidence. . MONEY BORROWED. Giving evidence, Mrs. Donaghy said that while she was at Berman's having her hair done a Miss Crew, whom she know slightly, went into the shop. Witness did not know sho was going there. When the work was finished, witness, who had only £1 in her purse, borrowed 10s from Miss Crew and paid tho 30s to Miss Miller, the girl who had been attending to her. Miss Miller gave her a docket for £1 10s. Miss Miller then left the room, and while she was away witness gave the docket to Miss Crew. When Miss Miller returned to the room she asked for the docket, and witness told her that she did. not havo it. Witness then asked Miss Miller to ask Mr. Berman for a receipt for tho 30a. Miss Miller went down to "see Mr. Berman, and when sho camo back said that he did not givo receipts. During the discussion as t«» the price for the wave there was no iriyntion of the 30s being a part payment. IN THE SAME BUSINESS. Mr. W. E. Leicester, who appeared for tho defendant: "Were you sent by Mrs. Stamford or any other person on 20th March, to get evidence against Mr. Berman ?»-4"N0.» • -•"Did you know that Miss Crew or any other employee of Mrs. Stamford was to be sent down there when you were there?"—" No." • Witness said that before going to Bcrman's on 20th March sho called in at Mrs. Stamford's and told her she was going to have her hair waved. Mr. Leicester: "You know that Mrs. Stamford is a rival of Mr. Berman's in this particular trade'"'—"l cannot say that." ,' 'You knew that, they were both' in tho same line of business?"—"Yes.""According to your statement you had no desire to get any evidence at all against Mr. Berman?"—"No." "Did you, know that the docket you received was used solely for office use?" —"No." "Why did you pass the docket to Miss Crow?"—"I don't know." "What was your reason for concealing the fact that Miss Crew had the docket when Miss Miller asked if you had it?" —"I thought it was Miss Crew's place to do that." "Did you assist Miss Miller in a pretended search for that docket?"— "No." "You opened your purso to show her that you did not have the docket?"— "I might have opened the purse." "What was your object in asking for a receipt?"—"l just wanted one, that's all, Whenever.l pay out money I like to get a receipt." "Why did' you want a receipt if you had ;the',aocket?"—"l just wanted it." "Why not be honest and tell mo that you were ordered by hook or by crook to get a receipt?"—"l am. honest. I was not ordered to go and get a receipt." . James W. F. Donnelly, a hairdresser, stated that ho was president of the association. Since the prices had been fixed on 25th August , he had had numerous requests to do work at a price less than the association prices. That work had been turned down. ,IN ASSOCIATION'S INTEREST. Mr. Leicester said it might be and probably was. in the interests of the association that the prices should be stabilised. Ho then proceeded to discuss the wording of the rulo regarding the fixing of prices, and said that ho was unable to see any provision that the association was entitled to recover £100 or any other sum for a breach of the scaje of charges. On that ground •bo1 moTect for- a non-suit. He also sub,rai.tte/L .that it was quite clear that Mrs. Donaghy was not telling the truth. It seemed incredible to him that she, who was in the employ of Mrs. Stain-

ford, would go to Mr. Berman to havo her hair done when Mrs. Stamford was engaged in the same line of business. The defence would bo a complete denial that Mr. Berman agreed to do the work for 30s.

Mr. Meltzer submitted that thero was only one way to read the clause, and that was that every member agreed to sign, if called upon to sign, an agreement whereby they would be liable to a fine of £100 if they committed a breach of the association's rules as to the maintenance of prices. The Magistrate, Mr. T. B. M'Neil, said that the wording of the document was not at all clear, and he would reserve his decision on that point. The first witness for the defence, Myer Bermau, said he had told MissMiller that lie could not do the work for 30s, and that the charge would have to be 355. The docket that had been made out for £1 10s was for the cash actually received. Mrs. Donaghy had agreed to come in the following day and pay the extra ss. UNDERTAKING NOT BINDING. After considering Mr. Leicester's application for a non-suit during the luncheon adjournment, Mr. M'Neil said ho had come to the conclusion that he would have to non-suit Mr. Meltzer on the'ground that there had been no breach of the clause, in that no undertaking binding on the defendant had been signed in pursuance of that rule. The resolution of 25th August, 1930, signed by the defendant, was not the signing of an undertaking in compliance with the rules, as the society was not then incorporated. On the application of Mr. Meltzer, security for appeal was fixed at £10 10s, plus the amount, of the costs, £9 9s.