ARTS AND MYSTERIES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1198, 5 August 1911, Page 5

ARTS AND MYSTERIES.

"BEAUTY PAKLOUHf CASE." (Bj Telegraph.—Press Association.! Christchurch, August 4. A case known locally as the "Beauty Parlour Case," which was on a previous occasion before the magistrate when plaintiff was non-suited, was belore tho Court to-day, Mr. Bailoy, b.M., taking the hearing. Eva Jlabel hmerson, of Ohnstchurch,. spinster, claimed .£SO compensation for breaoh of contract' from ley Burnett, Ltd., of Christchurch, toilet experts. Plaintiff alleged that defendants undertook to teach her tor a sum of £15, face massage, scalp massage, hairdressing, shampooing, manicuring, treatment for weak and falling hair, the making up of switches, fronts, transformations, and every description of hair work, and also the making of tonics and pomades, lor a period bf three months, .subsequent to November 7, 1910, the plaintiff attended at the place of business of defendant for tho purpose of being taught, but. the defendant, plaintiff alleged, failed to teach t.he plaintiff "Iho arts and mjstones specified in tho agreement, or to afford her adequate opportunities to learn them. Tho plaintiff had suffered damages through having to reside in Christchurch during the period of three months and,giving 'her lime and service to the defendants without remuneration. Aor those reasons tho plaintiff claimed recovery of the £25 paid totto defendant company and a further .£25 for damages. Evidence much on similar linos to that given at tho previous hearing was taken. Practically the only new point brought forward for plaintiff lay in a representation, preceding the contract, that the hairwork department was in the hands of Mr. Holderness, a skilled man, of London 'training. A few days after she entered the service of tho company, Air. Holderness practically left the emp»oy. Instead of Mr. Holderness Mrs. Clark was to teach plaintiff. Mrs. Clark had been taught by Mr. Holderness, having been in the employ of tho company for tuffy three months, and having, given £5. of her premium for the privilege of being, taught bv Mr. Holderness. Several witnesses for the defence slated that,they had seen three women, including plaintiff, working in the company's rooms. Henry Holderness, called by the defence, stated that he considered plaintiff had learnt sufficient of tho liair-work trade to teach pupils. Mrs. Clark had been showing plaintiff how to do hair-work, and witness had been always willing to teach her the trade, and would have given her any information she asked for. He could not say whether plaintiff had been taught "all branches of hair-work" as specified in tho contract. The eaM) was adjourned till August 18, but before that date an opportunity is to bo given counsel to argue certain non-suit points raised.