BEAUTY=MAKING.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1081, 21 March 1911, Page 6

BEAUTY=MAKING.

-? INTERESTING CMUSTC'IIURCH CASK. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Christchurch, -March 20. The secrets of the beauty-making shop were divulged in the -Magistrate's Court this morning, when Eva -Mabel Emerson sued Jlem-ley Burnett, Ltd., beauty sjR'C-ialists, of Christchurch, lor pre- i niuim' paid by the plaintiff to be taught j the business. This she alleged had iwt , been done. Mr. H. \V. Bishop, S.M., occupied the bench. ' I'laintiff said that some time ago she ' met .Mis. Barrett in Jlokitika. Mi>. Bar- 1 rett traded under the name of Hemsley Burnett, Lid. Mrs. Barrett suggested that plaintiff should learn the business, and said that in three months she woulo be proficient. Plaintiff was lo pay Plaintiff paid the EK 011 November 27. Plaintiff noticed that in the agreement tonics and pomades were omitted, and as they were the most lucrative part of the business, costing only 3d., and selling ut as., she saw that the teaching of these was added to the agreement. Plaintiff entered upon her duties, which she performed conscientiously, and to' tho best of her ability. There was 110 rift in tho lute until plaintiff made her complaint about inadequate teaching. After plaintiff had been learning fur about six weeks defendant had suggested to plaintiff that plaintiff should Open a shop in Oamaru, and get her work done by defendant at bedrock prices. Plaintiff, in cross-examination, said she could not say whether she had derived any benefit .from the instruction received or not. The trouble with the instruction was that she had been taught 110 theory. At. the end of the three months she asked Mrs. Barrett to take her on at a salary. Defendant said plaintiff' had made certain indiscreet remarks to clients. She would keep her 011, but. at 110 salary. Witness 1 did not remember saying that defendant would have to tako her on at a salary. She remembeied telling defendant that she had her business reputation to lose, but she (plaintiff) had not. Defendant said the other members of the company were her son, her daughter, and a Miss Fisher. Plaintiff had told defendant -that, she had -£100, and if defendant took her for three months for .£25 she would then have enough money to start in the business. Defendant said she would be likely to earn £3 or ■£■! a week at massaging. Defendant further told 'plaintiff that if she proved herselt capable she might take her on at tho end of the three months. She had had four or five pupils during the seven year 9 that she had been in business, and the usual thing was to pay .£23. .'. To the magistrate: Two of her old pupils were now carrying on business. To Mr. Hunter: Her practice with her pupils, was to teach tlieni the Whole business, and explain things to them by practical demonstration. Her other pupils had been quite competent to do tho treatment at the end ot' three months. The custom-in the profession was to get others to do the wig-making. Defendant employed a Mr. Holderness. Plaintiff went upstairs to learn this, and came downstairs after and said she could not manage that part of the business. Defendant did not tell plaintiff that she would become an expert wig-maker in three months. Witness heard that Miss Emerson had been talking about another employee's roughness to a client, and later pn plaintiff said that she was not learning enough. Plaintiff again went upstairs to tho work-room, but grave compßiints were made by the others, and when plaintiff went and asked witness for a salary she told her that she was displeased. On being told a salary would not be granted her, plaintiff said she was going 011 with tjie matter, as she. had nothing to lose and defendant had her name anil reputation. At this stage further hearing was adjourned for a week.