A BEAUTY PARLOR.

Evening Star, Issue 14637, 5 August 1911, Page 2

A BEAUTY PARLOR.

The. case known locally as the beauty parlor case, which on a previous occasion was before the Magistrate, when the plaintiff was nonsuited, was before the Christchurch Court yesterday. Eva Mabel Emerson, of Christchurch, spinster, claimed £SO compensation for breach of contract from Hemsloy Burnett, Ltd., of . Christchurch, toilet experts. The plaintiff alleged that defendants undertook to teach her, for the sum of £25, face massage, scalp massage, hairdressing, shampooing, manicuring, treatment for weak and falling hair, the ruak- ; ing up of switches, fronts, transformations, i and every description of hairwork, and also the "making of tonics and pomades. "For a, period of three, mouths subsenuent !to November 7. 1910. the plaintiff" afi tended at the place of business of defendants for the purpose of being taught, but ! the defendants, plaintiff alleged, failed to j teach the plaintiff the "arts and mys- ! terie.s" specified iu the agreement, or to ; afford her .adequate opportunities to learn I them. The plaintiff had suffered damages 'through having to reside in Christchurch during the period of three months, and giving her time and service to the defendants without remuneration. For those reasons the plaintiff claimed recovery' of the £25 paid to the defendant company, si!id a further £25 for damages. Evidence, which was on similar lines to that given at the previous hearing, was taken. Practically the only point brought forward for the. plaintiff lay in a representation preceding the contract that the hairwork department was in the hands of Mr Holdernsss. <l skilled man, of London training. A few days after plaintiff entered the service of the company Mr Holderness practically left the employ, and instead of Mr Holderness Mrs Clark was to teach the plaintiff. Mrs Clark had been taught by Mr Holderness, having been in the employ of the company for fully three months, and having given £5 of her premium for the privilege of being taught by Mr Iloldeiness. Several witnesses for the defence stated that they had seen three women, including the plaintiff, working in the company's rooms. Henry Holderness, called by the defence, stated that be considered the plaintiff had learnt suflicicnt. of the hairwork trade to teach pupils. Mrs Clark had been showing Che plaintiff how to do hairwork, and witness had been always willing to teach her the trade, and would have given her ;sp.\- information she asked for. He could not say whether the phi in; ill had been taught ''all the branches of hairwork." aa spr'-iiied in tiie contract. The, e;;s," was adjourned till the ISt'a inst.. but before that date an opportunity !-: In be given counsel to urge certain nonsuit points raised.