HAIR TREATMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 91, 14 October 1926, Page 14

HAIR TREATMENT

CLAIM AGAINST SPECIALIST

FURTHER EVIDENCE HEARD

THE DEFENDANT'S QUALIFICATIONS.

Further evidence in the case in-which Mabel Burton claimed from _ Donnelly and Sons, hair specialists, £50 deposited to take a course of instruction, i~33 for loss of salary while undergoing instruction, and £65 loss of salary while undergoing further instruction to become a hair specialist, was heard before Mr. E. Page, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. O'Donovan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. T. Young for Donnelly and Sona.

James * 'William Francis Donnelly, principal of the defendant firm, said it had been intended to move the business to larger premises in Ciba street, and to utilise the Vivian street premises as a college. He had had eight pupils in view, but the college had-not been started. Miss Burton came to see him, and discussed a course of training with him. She started with him in Vivian street, about a week after another pupil, a Mr. Douglas, had come to him. Both were to receive the same instruction. Some weeks afterwards the business.was removed to Cuba street, but he decided to abandon the idea of running the college, as it seemed to him that it would be difficult to conduct both establishments. He told Miss Burton he would refund the £50 paid by her as a deposit, and let her remain in the Cuba street'premises as an apprentice at a salary of £1 108 a week, or let her go, whichever she chose. Sht chose to stay. If she had said that he had not offered to refund the money she was wrong. Ho gave her a lot of his time, and super--vised quite a lot of her work. She was very slow to start with, but finished up by doing good work. and becoming proficient at haircutting, which formed the'principal part of the work in his establishment. If Miss Burton had said she received no instruction in shampooing it was "absolute rot." He himself had taught her face massage, both by explanation and by demonstration, and had also shown her how to apply an alcohol pack. After detailing other instruction which the plaintiff had received, witness said that Miss Burton dealt with 180 clients between 9th May and 12th June, the checks returned by her ehowing that she had received payments totalling £18 7a. On 14th June, Miss Bu^.i commenced to receive a salary of £3 a week. Shortly afterwards, she admitted that she felt confident in everything but hair staining, and witness told his sister to give her further instruction. Miss Burton was with him for five weeks at a salary of £3, and could have stayed indefinitely. She' wanted to- start on her own, however, and he found her a position in Nelson at £4 10s a week. She did not accept it, as she wanted to stay in town. He was thoroughly satisfied with her work, and had he not thought her profisient he would not have let her go. To Mr. o'Donovan: He had heard Miss Burton state that she had 'eft her position with another firm because she was not competent. Mr. O 'Donovan then proceeded to question the defendant as to his qualifications for claiming to be a hair specialist. "You are a graduate of the University of California?" he asked.' Defendant: "Yes." Mr. O 'Donovan: "Have you a diploma*"—"Yesi." . "What did it cost t About £lt" "It cost nothing: I took a degreo after studying for twelve months. It is a registration." "You have no diploma, then?"— "No. I have my degrees." "Haven't you any evidence of your obtaining these,degrees?"—"Yes." "Where is it!"—"ln> my work." "You ask the Court to believe that tho University of California issues degrees but gives no diplomas? Have you a certificate?"—" No." • , "Although you have taken these degrees?"—"l lost all my possessions in a fire on the boat at Panama." "So that we only have your word!" —"That is all you have, Sir." "When did you take this course!" —"In 1908." "You spent 12 months studying!"— "Eighteen months." "Yet you can turn out hair specialists to-day in three months."— "Yes." "Do you suggest that your course was wasted time!"—"l do." "Then what are your, qualifications? You are a barber?"—"No; a ladies' hairdresser. There's a difference." After the defendant had stated that he had started cutting hair when ho was 12 years old, and had therefore had 28 years' experience, Mr. O'Donovan questioned him regarding tho college which he had intended starting. "You no sooner got Miss Burton's £50 than yon decided you could not go on with tha college!" he asked. Defendant: "Just as soon as I decided it was not worth while going on with the college I tola her she could have her £50 back and stay on at the Cuba street premises at £1 10s a week, or leave, just as she pleased." It was "tommy rot" for Miss Burton to say that Mr. Andrews, ono of his assistants, had had no time to give her instruction; he had been spending most of his time instructing her and others. Mr. O'Donovan: "Miss Burton says that she has never seen you shampoo anybody's hair." Defendant: "Oh, that is " Miss Burton, interrupting excitedly: "I've never seen Mr. Donnelly wet his hands." After • further questioning, Mr. O'Donovan asked Donnelly if he expected the Court to believe that Miss Burton was a liar. Defendant: "I say that a good deal of what she . said yesterday was untrue." He added that her diary was "absolute piffle"; in one place it showed that.she handled,only one customer, when his diary showed that she. handled five. The case was then further adjourned till next Monday morning. ' '