CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 142, 20 May 1925, Page 11

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

TOILET EXPERTS BEFORE COURT THE JURY’S DECISION. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, May 19. At the Supreme Court Mrs Lilian Thomus, boarding bouse keeper, claimed £629 damages from Maud Hanna and Marie Antoinette Stewart, trading as toilet experts under the name of Miss McElwain, for injuries alleged to have been received through the treatment of her hair with some deleterious substance, or in an unskilful, negligent or improper manner, as the result of which she became afflicted with sores, suffered great pain, and her general health was injuriously affected.

The case -was heard by Mr Justice Herdman and a jury. The action was on an alleged breach of contract, said Mr Inder, who appeared for the plaintiff. Either the preparation referred to was not used, or it was improperly used. That was tie plaintiff's’assertion. The preparation ordered was a harmless chemical compound used for dyeing hair. The other mixture was a preparation that had given rise to similar actions in other countries.

The defence denied the use of any deleterious substance and denied unskilful treatment. PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE. Plaintiff stated in evidence that in 1920 her hair had been treated by Miss McElwain, using the preparation already referred to. On going to the toilet rooms in 1924, witness arranged with Mrs Stewart to receive treatment. Mrs Stewart said they employed a quick process. The treatment was exactly similar to that previously used, but was effective more quickly. On the day when treatment was given witness was attended by an assistant. and she noticed that the preparation had a different smell. The assistant, in reply to a question, saul it was the correct preparation. Witness's hair was not washed prior to the treatment. Twenty minutes after the application the assistant shampooed lier hair.

HAIR COMES OUT. On the way home on the tramcar witness felt an irritation under her hat; next day she was greatly irritated .and whenever she ran her fiingers through the hair they came away damp, and the hair came out quite easily. Her ears were swollen On the following day her condition was worse, and she called on Mrs Stewart at her rooms, and showed her the condition of her hair. Witness told her she was going to the doctor. Mrs Stewart suggested that the preparation might bo washed off with warm oil, but witness preferred to see a doctor. Mrs Stewart said to be sure to send the bill into her and she would settle it. Witness then went to Dr. Endletsberger, who prescribed egg shampoo and castor oil, advising her against the use of warm olive oil, but it did not have the effect of curing the trouble. On the day following witness’s nose had swollen, so that it was a tremendous size, “half-way across her eyes,” and her ears were “three times their present size.”

TROUBLE INCREASES

On going to the toilet rooms that day (Saturday) tho assistant said Mrs Stewart was not there, and she personally had not got time to shampoo her head. On Monday witness returned to Dr. Endletsberger, who toot her to Dr. Macky. Her condition was now very bad, and she could not get relief. Her head was a mass of pus, and her ears were watering. Mrs Stewart told witness that the only thing she could think was that the girl had not treated her with the correct preparation, but must have used a brush with another substance on it. Dr. Macky ordered a nurse for witness, and she went home and lay unconscious for the whole of the following week. Then she lost her eyesight for a while. The whole of her hair was removed, tho nurse having to cut it off quite close to the scalp. She vas advised to get a second nurse, and Mrs Stewart called, promising to pay for her sendees, and saying she would make a wig for her later, and give her treatment. The trouble spread, her arms and neck broke out in sores her left foot was affected, and her eyelids cracked, and it was then that slie lost her sight for a time. Witness stated that the preparation was Intended to dye her hair a midbrown. She removed her hat whde giving evidence, revealing a light growth of grey hair. Under cross-examination plaintiff stated that she had never used anything but the pre'paration ordered. She had not used henna. His Honour : What is the effect of henna?

Mr Quarterly: I understand it can be used to transform the hair to anything from green to the latest mauve. Cross-examined, witness said that about 18 months previously she used inecto on the top of her head. She did not know the smell of henna. Two doctors gave evidence as to plaintiff’s sufferings. They stated that a test with malvina and inecto was made on plaintiff’s arm. The former produced no irritation, but tho latter caused severe inflammation.

CASE FOR DEFENCE. For the defence Mr Quartley said that plaintiff had to prove that she got poisoning and that she got it from the defendants’ treatment. A lady assistant would say that she gave the treatment for which plaintiff asked, and that she used a clean new brush. She suggested that it was possible the sulphur in the preparation asked for was tho cause of the trouble.

Evidence as to the use of a perfectly clean brush was given. Olive Hackett, hairdresser, who applied the preparation, said that a new brush had been used. In her case she said she had not followed the instructions of the manufacturers of the pre-

paration, as it was not found necessary to do so. Mrs Marie Stewart, one of the defendants, said that when the plaintiff returned after the treatment and compla ned that she had had trouble, she examined her head and found a slight inflammation on the forehead. Witness offered to use the olive oil treatment and shampoo to remove the stain, but she preferred to use a lotion given by the doctor. On the following day plaintiff called again. Witness rubbed the scalp and gave her a shampoo, upon which she said that she felt easier Later witness saw the plaintiff in the doctor’s rooms and said that if Hie preparation had caused trouble nor firm would pay the medical expenses. Cross-examined by Mr Inder. witness said that they experimented themselves with a quick process method. As experts they disagreed from the instructions of the makers of the preparation because they found the new method satisfactory.

The jury found plaintiff’s allegations proved und awarded special damages £IS3 4s 4d and general damages £75. Dir Ouarterley, for the defence, said he would like time to consider the question of proceeding with a non-sub poiiit. The Judge therefore adjourned the case for further consideration.