PERMANENT BALD PATCH

Greymouth Evening Star, 19 December 1933, Page 10

PERMANENT BALD PATCH

AWARD AGAINST HAIRDRESSERS. A parlourmaid who alleged that wb.le having a permanent wave her scalp was burned and a permanent bald patch caused, was awarded £5O by a jury at West London Countycourt recently, against W. Connor and Sen, hairdressers, North End Road, Fulham. Plaintiff, Grace Amy Haynes, 19, of Tam worth - Street, Fulham, sued through her father. Mr E. Pearce, for Miss Haynes, said that when she was having a permanent, wave her scalp under the base of one- of the cylinders became very painful. Steam was escaping from the cylinder. She called the assistant’s attention to this, and he put a cbttcn-wool pad between the cylinder mid her scalp. When she went home she had. considerable pain and could net sleep. Three months later she went to her doctor, and later received hospital treatment. "Miss Haynes has a bald patch on her head and the hair will not grow again on that spot,” added Mr Pearce. “She is only a young girl.-She takes r, justifiable pleasure in her looks, and they are of some importance to her from, the point of view ol matrimony. if she is not fortunate enough to marry she will continue in service, and the bald natch will be a drawback to her there.” Dl. Hugh Ernest Griffiths, called by the defendants, said that a second degree ’ had no effect upon the roots of the hair.

The assistant, Henry Ernest Connor, said he was in partnership with his father. There was nothing wrong with the apparatus.

“BRIGHT SIDE OF 40.” “I do not think that one ought to be grey on the bright side of 40,” said a woman who alleged that her hair “came out in handfuls” after a permanent wave, when questioned at the same court about dyeing her hair. She was Mrs Marv Williams, Snow-dcn-mansions, Buckingham-place, Brighton, formerly of Goldhawk-road, Hammersmith, and alleged negligence against Lerner Brothers, hairdressers, King’s Street, Hammersmith, in respect of a permanent wave, in consequence of which, she contended, .she hhd lost part of her fjair and had suf-1 tered personal disfigurement. For the defence, it was contended that plaintiff was warned that in consequence of her hair having been

dyed the task of waving was rendered difficult. Mrs Williams told the Court: "Before the ‘perm.’ my hair was finite long, as my husband hated short hair. This was my first permanent wave. I decided it would be my last.” Plaintiff took off her hat to show the judge her hair and said: “I am unable to do my hair in any style now. It is much thinner.” Judge Kennedy gave judgment for Mrs Williams for £l5, and costs. “At tlie time of the wave she had an abundance of long hair, in which she took a justifiable pride,” he said.