ALLEGED BARBERS' RASH.

Gisborne Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5533, 15 July 1920, Page 7

ALLEGED BARBERS ' RASH.

CLAIM AGAINST HAIRDRESSER

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED

AUCKLAND, July 14. A somewhat unusual case came before Mr. Hunt. S.M.. at the Magistrate’s Court when Bernard L. Arrowsmith sued Harry Cleal to recover £llß ss.

Plaintiff stated that on March 17, 1920, defendant or his servant shaved plaintiff, and it was alleged that as the result of such shaving, plaintiff contracted barbers’ rash. This was also alleged to be due to the neglect of defendant or his servant. Plaintiff claimed that he had lost eight weeks’ work as engineer, also that lie bad suffered great pain and anguish of mind and body, and incurred medical expenses. Plaintiff therefore claimed £SO general damages, £56 for loss of eight weeks’ wages at £7 a week, £lO 10s for medical attendance, and £1 15s for medicines) a total of £llß ss.

Mr. Hunt, after reading the statement of claim, remarked, “No wonder they put up the price of shaving.” Evidence was given by plaintiff that he went to defendant’s saloon, to get his hair cut. He then thought lie would have a shave and asked if c-are was taken. The man answered that the brushes were sterilised occasionally. Witness was then shaved. He returned on bis ship, and later spots began to show on his face. Upon seeing the doctor he was informed that it was barbers’ rash.

Dr. Hagen, of Devonporfc, who attended plaintiff, stated that although it was not the common form of ringworm of the beard the patient was nevertheless suffering from what was called barbers’ rash.

Mr. Carrick Robertson, surgeon, on behalf of defendant, stated that staphrylo-cocci, which were a source of infection, were a common organism. and no relation could lie shown between the barber’s brush and infection.

Dr. Milsom considered that the germs could he picked up as easily in the street as in a shop, and could also he introduced into an abrasion on the face bv contact with the hands. A slight abrasion on plaintiff’s skin might have been introduced during shaving, but the germ was probably introduced afterwards. Dr. McDiarmid stated that lie had only made an examination after a cure was effected. It was a mere inference to say that the cliseaso was “barbers’ rash,” which name, several authorities stated, was a misnomer.

Henry John Cleal stated that every precaution was taken and he had never seen a case of “barbers’ rash.” They used about 1000 towels and 500 head brushes in his establishment. Each article was never used twice without being first washed in strong soda water and lysol. After hearing counsel the Magistrate nonsuited plaintiff.—Press Assn.