"THE BEAUTY BUSINESS."

Greymouth Evening Star, 21 March 1911, Page 5

"THE BEAUTY BUSINESS."

4 A DISSATISFIED PUPIL,

“MRS HEMSLEY-BURNETT” IN THE BOX.

[BY TELEGRAPH —SPECIAL TO THE STAR.j • CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. The usual dull routine of summonses and counter claims and orders for tradesmen, was watched in the Magistrate’s Court by a large crowd, iilcluding many women yesterday morning and the explanation of the unusual attendance was forthcoming, when Eva Mabel Emerson, for whom Mr Alpers appeared, sued Hemsley Burnett, Ltd., (Mr Hunter) for £25, money paid to leant the‘“beauty” business. ■ Plaintiff claimed that she had not received- her money’s -worth. •-•.( : ; THE PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT. Miss Emerson, a tall handsome young woman from the West Coast, gave .her evidence quietly and the defendant Company was represented by Mrs Barrett, who, Mr Alpers explained, was the company. Mr Alpers said that the claim was for £25 which had been paid as a premium for,all sorts of peculiar, things. The defendants were a limited company, and the business consisted of rubbing it in your hair. Mr Bishop: Presuming that you have any hair. , . Mr Alpers, continuing, said that manicuring, pedicuring and the making of hair into fronts, transformations and switches, were carried on. The Magistrate: What are transformations ?

Mr Alpei-s : They are not connected with the Drury Lane Pantomime, but are ,a sort of toupees. If your hair is a bit thin on one side they even it up. The business, he added, was taught to widows and .young ladies for £25, and defendant said that she would teach plaintiff enough in three months to enable her to go on her own account in the art of wig making. She would be taught by Mr Holderness, a competent wig maker, and in other things she (the defendant) would teach plaintiff, and above all would show her how to make up the wonderful pomades and tonics.

The agreement was entered into, and the £25 was paid. She noticed the tonics and pomades were not included; and they were the most lucrative part of the business, for they cost 3d and sold for S J-. Eventually that- was added to the agreement. Mrs Barrett then said the plaintiff could start iii Napier or Oamaru, where, for obscure geographical reasons, the people seemed to be peculiarly gullible. Sho attended at the rooms assiduously, and swept out and took stock. She had h Pl an hour’s massage once as practice on defendant’s fact, and was then turned >n to patients who paid 3s 6d for the privilege. She had lessons in hairdressing by dressing Mrs Barrett’s hail it their loddng and’ the style was the same. “RUB IT IN.” She had no lessons beyond practising on patients, being simply told to “rub it in” or push an electrical marching. She was told that Mrs Clark, another apprentice, would teach the making of switches, and she was not taught how to make tonics and pomades. She complained to the accountant that she was not being taught, and was told she was treacherous. Then the three months was up and plaintiff had no money and cot no teaching. The plaintiff gave evidence,, saying that she met Mrs Barrett in Hokitika, and came ,to Christchurch to learn the beauty business. Witness could not now make a switch or pad. She had received only one book from the company which contained a chanter on “How to keep the love of a Husband,” and other things besides a chapter on hair. Later on Mrs Barrett said that she had opened a business in Oamaru and asked witness to take it over. She was to run it without any knowledge and to sell defendant’s pomades. THE DEFENCE.

In opening the defence Mr Hunter said that Mr Alpers had practically charged his client with fraud. The word “fakements” had been used.

Mr Bishop said that Mr Alpers had been merely having a little fun at the expense of the defendant company that bad nothing to do with the case to be decided, which was whether the agreement had been carried out. He thought it foolish to. bring such sordid details into Court. • Mr Hunter said that the defence was that the woman was thoroughly competent to carry out the work, and he would show there was malice in the case.

Mr Alpers said that there was no suggestion of malice or ,pf an attempt to attack on Mrs Barrett’s competency. The case turned on whether the plaintiff had been made competent. Mr Hunter said that the thing had been honestly done. The business was a properly carried on affair just as those in large cities everywhere. Mr Bishop : Yes, I, know that there are these places everywhere to appeal to the vanity of both sexes. Mr Hunter put defendant in the box and addressed" her as “Mi's- Hemsley Burnett.”

M r Bishop : Please Mr Hunter address the witness by her proper name. In,reply to the Magistrate’ the witness said her name was Emma Barrett. Defendant said she was managing director of Hemsley Burnett, Ltd., the other members of the Company were her son, her daughter and a Miss Fisher. Plaintiff had said she had £IOO, and witness had taken her for three months for £25. She told plaintiff that she would be likely to earn £3 or £4 a week at massaging. If plaintiff proved herself competent she might take' ner on at the end mf three months During seven years witness had had four or five pupils at £25. Her practice with the pupils was to explain the whole business by practical demonstra. tion. Her other pupils had been quite competent to do the treatment at the end of three montsh. It was customary to get other experts to make the wigs. Plaintiff had gone upstairs to learn wig making from Mr Holderness, the expert in the business, and said she could not manage that part. She asked plaintiff if she would like to open rooms in Oamaru for experience, and she did so staying there for a fortnight. Defendant was told by plaintiff that her health demanded that she should go to Napier, Afterwards witness heard that Miss Emerson had been talking about another employee’s roughness to a client, and later on plaintiff said that she was not learning enough. Plaintiff again went upstairs in the workroom, but grave complaints were made by the others and when plaintiff went and asked witness for a salary she told her that she was displeased. On being told that a salary would not be granted her plaintiff said that she was going on with the matter as she had nothing to lose and defendant had her name and reputation. CROSS EXAMINATION. By Mr Alpers:—Witness said that she had never given instructions to

Miss Emerson not to disturb her while she was working with clients. The formulas for tonics and pomades were at the disposal of plaintiff, who had read instructions in making them up from witness.- Defendant had never told plaintiff to bring an action. At this stage the case was adjourned for a week.