BEAUTY CULTURE PROFITS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCIV, Issue 14523, 19 August 1911, Page 1 (Supplement)

BEAUTY CULTURE PROFITS.

THE RUBENSTKIX CASE. An action against a wealthy American lady ' brought by a fashionable complexion specialist " was heard byMr. .lu.-ticc lirav and a special jiuv in the King's Bench D.vi.-itfn last month. T!u--r,!i',inr..ff was Mrs. Helena Titus, ii. h,-.5.n..<,- at Graltou-strcet, W., as well a> n. Au/tiaiia and New Zealand, 'i i-ler the name of Helena Rubinstein an-! (.'... She sued .Mrs. Louise • W'in-tei-.-..i..ii. :■■: Fil'tli-iivciiue, New York, for in kicin : .m; ef her assistants, Miss Dora Kilei Stock, to break her contract r,r cr.iiilin-uieiit, . and for the alleged detention of .Miss Stock afterMr.' Horace Walker.' K.C.. for the plaintiff, exiihiiiied that in 190S Mrs. Titus took Miss Stuck into her employ and she entered into a,, agreement to remain will, her for three" wars. The deliidant became, a customer of Mrs. Titus and went to Oration-street 'about :'(; tunes, and trap attended bv Mitss Stock cm 25 of tho occasions. The'treatment was verv successful anil when at the en.l of 1008 Mrs. Wintcrfeldl contemplated returning to America sh; arniiieo-l to take " Miss Stock ivit.li Ice, l<.. three months and to pay the plaintiff £l5O a month for her services. Evidence was given by Mr. Robert Newton Crane, barrister and senior counsel to tho American Embassy, to the effect that under "the American law it was actionablo .to induce a servant to break a contract of employment or to employ one after such breach. Mrs. Titus was then called, and gave evidence bearing out her counsel's statement: Plaintiff added that during the London season she was shorthanded at Graftmi-streot, and had to refuse work. An assistant would earn from £3O to £'soo a month. .The Judge: This makes one's mouth water, j-ou know. (Laughter.) Why d:d net you immediately got an' assistant and try to teach ber?—lt is verv difficult. Mr Latter (for tho plaintiff): I (.hinli you had a M .wd manv treatments. Will you toll tn<- what was the cheapest treatment?—"A -guinea is absolutely tho .boapest. ..What do they go to?—To about six guineas each. Of course, that cum you. mentioned as'beeng earned by the assistant is not all profit?—Oh no, we spend about £20,000 a vcar. .Mr. P. E. Smith, K.C. (for the defendant) : I understand that you have live complexion assistants, each earning £IOO a week?— Yes. What proportion of the' takings of £SOO a week is net profit?— That depends. Give are a rough idea. Suppose unlearned friend came to have "his complexion treated. (Laughter.) 1-low nnich would you liave to spend on that?—lt depends. ■ftell, take an ordinary guinea case, how much, would tho preparations cost?—,\ few shillings. . ft is quite common tfhen for you to pay from 7s (id to £1 a week'to an assistant who is making £BOO or £9OO a year —lt- is not all nrofit. Plaintiff stated that she had an income from businesses other than hor London business of about £5,000 a year. . After hearing further evidence' t?<n jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and judgment was entered aecordnicdy.