BEAUTY SPECIALIST IN COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15098, 22 March 1911, Page 3

BEAUTY SPECIALIST IN COURT.

A MATTER OF PREMIUM.

CPee United Pbess Association.) • . CHRISTCHURCH, March 20. The secrete of the beauty-making ehop ■were divulged in the Magistrate's Court this morning, when Eva Mabel Emerson eued Hemsky Burnett, Ltd., baaoity specialists, of Christehurch, for £25 premium paid by the plaintiff to be taught the business. This, she alleged, had not been done. Mi H. Y. Bishop, S.M., occupied the bench.

Plaintiff said that some time ago she met Mrs Barrett in Holdtika. Mre Barrett traded -under the name of Hemsley Burnett, Ltd. Mis Barrett suggtstod that plaintiff should leam the business, and eaid that in. three months 6he would be proficient. Plaintiff was fe> pay £25. Plaintiff paid tie £25 on November 27. Plaintiff noticed thqt in the agreement tonics and pomades were omitted, and, as they were the most lucrative part of the business, costing only 3d and selling for 5.% she 6aw that the teaching of thesß was added to the agreement. Plaintiff entered upon her duties, which ehe performed conscientiously and to the best of her ability. There was no rift in the luto until plaintiff made her complaint about inadequate teaching. After plaintiff had been learning far about six weeks, defendant had suggested to plaintiff that plaintiff should open a shop in Oamaru ami get her work done by defendant at bedrock prices. In uxtts-exa mi nation, plaintiff eaid she could not say whether she had derived any benefit fiom the instruction received or not. The trouble with the instruction was that she had been taught no theory. At the end of tho three niontlia she asked Mrs Barrett to tako her on at a salary. Defendant said plaintiff had made certain indissraet remarks to clients. She would keep her on, but at no salary. Witness did not remember saying that defendant would have to 'take her on at a salary. She remembered telling defendant that she had her biu-incss reputation io lose, but she (the plaantiff) had not. Defendant e,iid the other members of the company were her son, her daughter, and a Miss Fisher. PJointiff had tsJd defendant that sho had £ICO, and if defendant took her for throe months for £26 she wcoild then have enough money to start in the business. Delcndant said she would bo likely to earn £3 or £4 a

wesk at mss-aging. Defendant furth-r told plaintiff that if she proved herself capable she might take her on at the end of the three months. She had had four or five pupils during Iho seven years that she hid teen in uiismxss, and the usual thing was to pay £25. To the M.-.gxtratc : Two of her old puoi!s were row carrying on business-. To Mr Hnnier: Her practice with hor pupiJs was to teach th-.m the W'hcle business and explain things tj them by prarcal demonstration, Hor other pup:!s had been quite competent to do the treatment ■it the end of three months. The custom in the profession w<ls to get others to do the. wignwking. Defendant employed a Mr Holderness. Plaintiff went upstairs to learn this and came downstairs after and said rhe oould not manage that part of the business. Defendant did not tell plaintiff that she would become an expert wigmaker in three months. WitmES heard that Miss Eruersen had hem talking about another employee's roughness to a client, and later on plaintiff said that she wre not learning enough. Plaintiff again "we.it upstairs to iJie workroom, bnt grave complaints were made by the others, and v.'.en plaintiff went and asked witness for al salary she told her that she was displeased. On being told that a salary would not be granted her, plaintiff 6aid she was going on'with the matter, as sho hud nothing to lose and defendant had her name and reputation. At this .s;ane the further hearing was adjourned for a week.