TOILET TREATMENT

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 116, 20 May 1925, Page 9

TOILET TREATMENT

WAS HEALTH AFFECTED?

CLAIM AGAINST SPECIALISTS

JURY AWARDS DAMAGES.

(BI TELEGRAPH.—PttESS ASSOCIATION.)

AUCKLAND, 19th May

The case in which Mrs. Lilian Thomas, a boarding-house-keeper, claims £629 damages from Maud Hanna and Marie Antoinette Stewart, trading as toilet experts, under the name of "Miss M'Elwain," for injuries alleged to have been received through the treatment of .her hair with some deleterious substance, or in an unskilful, negligent, or improper manner, as a result of which she wan afflicted with sores and suffered great pain and her general health ■was injuriously affected, was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. Inder (counsel for plaintiff) crossexamined. Christine Olive Hacketfc, a hairdresser in the firm of "Miss M'Klwain." Witness stated that one-third ot the clients of her business used one of the preparations referred to during the case. Regarding the brushes used in dyeing hair, witness said that they were washed after being used, and were then used again. A brand new brush was used in plaintiff's case. There were a number of used brushes that had been treated with boiling water in the room at the time, .but it wa^ not an uncommon thing for a new one to be used. Mr Inder read instructions issued by the manufacturers of one of the preparations, and asked : "Is it not-a custom in your business to follow instructions as set out by manufacturers?" Witness said that they had not been followed out, as it had been found unnecessary to' do so. Dr. E. H. Milsorn stated that on 23rd February he examined plaintiff, and found that she was suffering from scalp, face, and neck trouble. •Mr. Quartley : "Is there anything in the preparation Mrs. Thomas askea should be used that may have caused trouble ?" Witness: "Sulphur may have caused it. Witness added tnat plaintiff's general health was poor." Mrs. Marie Antoinette Stewart was then called. She said thai- she was a partner in the defendant firm, and had had five years' experience. In December, 1920, November, 1921, and December, 1922, she had sent some of the preparation referred to the plaintiff in Wellington. Prom December, 1922, none was sent to plaintiff through the post. Witness first saw plaintiff on Thursday, | 18th December. She asked to see the young lady who had treated her previously. That person being out, witness asked if she could do anything, and plaintiff replied that she had had trouble after her hair had been stained. Witness examined Mrs. Thomas and found that she had a slight inflammation round the forehead. Plaintiff told witness that Dr. Fullerton had told her (plaintiff) that it was caused by. a preparation she had used on her hair, and that he had given her a lotion. Witness offered to use an olive oil treatment and shampoo to take off the stain, but plaintiff said that she preferred to use the lotion given her by the doctor. Next day,.plaintiff called again. • Witness rubbed the scalp, Bind gave plaintiff a shampoo, after which the latter said she felt much easier. A few days later witness saw Mrs. Thomas in Dr. Mackay's rooms; where plaintiff complained that she felt much worse, and that defendants were the cause of all the trouble. Witness said that if the preparation had caused the trouble her linn would pay the medical expenses. Mr. Inder (cross-examining): "Who; 'invented the 'quick process' method?"! Witness : "We experimented ourselves. We know that Mrs. Thomas had been . using a preparation for four years." "Can you suggest why she did not get this serious complaint before ?"-— "No." "Are you quite snre'it'was a Thursday on which Mrs. Thomas called ?."— "Yes,, but I can't quite remember whether it was in the' morning or after■noon." ■ •' "You know that the second preparation mentioned in this case can very easily prove harmful to some people?" "Yes." His Honour : "Where do you keep it? In the same room as other preparations?" Witness : "Yes, on long shelves with partitions between." Mr. Inder : "Why is it that you digress from the instructions of the manufacturers ?"—"Because we found it satisfactory." This ended the case for the defence. .Mr. Quartley thereupon moved for a nonsuit on the grounds : (1) That there was no evidence to go to the jury; and (2) that if mere was any evidence it was equally consistent with the damage being caused by or not being caused by plaintiff. J His Honour: "That is a matter for the jury." Mr Quartley put it to the jury that tne tact that plaintiff's hair was dyed to within an eighth of an inch of ihe scalp when she came for treatment went to suggest that she had some sort of preparation on her hair, and that the application in the toilet rooms ran the preparation down to the roots, causing the trouble. b ■Mr. Justice Heidman submitted the following issues to the jury : (1) Dii£ defendants in breach of an agreement made by .them with plaintiff to treat the latter s hair with the first preparation, treat it with some deleterious substance not being that preparation, thus causing the plaintiff damage? (2) JDid defendants treat plaintiff's hair in an unskilful,. negligent, and improper manner, thereby causing her injury? (3) What damages, (if any) is plaintiff en' titled to recover (a) by way of special damages, (b) by.way of general damages? The jury found that plaintiff's allegations were proved. Special damages totalling £133 4s 4d, and general damages £75 were awarded. Mr. Quartley said that he would like time to consider the question of proceeding with his nonsuit point. The Judge, therefore, adjourned the case for 1 further consideration.