BEAUTY SPECIALISTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7871, 5 August 1911, Page 1

BEAUTY SPECIALISTS

SECRETS OF THE TOILET CLAIM FOR ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. PEHS3 ASSOCIATION. CHRISTCHURCH, August 4. Tho case, known locally as tho '‘Beau y Parlour Case." which was heard on a previous occasion before the magistrate, when the plaintiff was nonsuited, came before tho court to-day. Air Bailey, b.SL. taking the hearing. Eva Mabel Emerson, of Christchurch, spinster, claimed ASO compensation tor breach of contract from Hemsley Burnett, Ltd., of Christchurch, toilet exPC pla'iulif£ alleged that defendants undertook to teach her, tor tho sum of .£25, face massage. scdlp massage, hairdressing, shampooing, mamcuriuu r . treatment for wuk autl tall ing hair, the making up ot switches, fronts, transformations, and oveiy description of hair work, and also the making of tonics and pomades, lor'ft period of three months subsequent to November 7th. 1011), the plaintiff attended at tho piace of business of defendant tor tho purpose of being taught, hut the defendant. plaintiff alleged, failed to teach her "the arts and mysteries specified in tho agreement, or to afford her adequate opportunities to learn them, iho plaiutiff had suffered damages through having to reside in Christchurch dining the period ot three months, aud giving her time and service to ttio defendants without remuneration. For those reasons the plaintiff chums recovery ot tho dr-i paid to tho defendant company, and a further A'2s for damages. Evidence much ou similar lines to that given at the previous hearing was taken. alleged misrepresentation. Practically tho only new point brought forward ' for plaintiff layin a representation made to her preceding tho contract that tho hair work department was in tho hands of Atr Holderuess, a skilled man of London training. A few days after plaintiff entered the service of the company Mr Holderness practically left its employ, and, instead of Air Holderness. Airs Clark was to teach plaintiff. Mrs Clark had been taught by Mr Holderness, having been in tho employ of the company lor fully' three months, and haring given -El of her premium for the privilege of being taught by Mr Holderness. Several witnesses for the defence stated that they had seen three women, inducing plaintiff, working in the company's rooms. LONDON SPECIALIST’S EVIDENCE. Henry Holderness, called by the defence, stated that he considered the plaintiff had learnt sufficient of tho hair work trade ’to teach pupils. Mrs Clark had been showing plaintiff how to do hair work, aud witness had been always willing to teach her the trade, and would have given her any information she asked for. ■ He could not say' whether plaintiff had been taught " all branches of hair work," as specified in tho contract.’ Tho case was adjourned till ./August 18lh, but before that date an opportunity is to be given counsel to argue certain nonsuit points raised.