FACIAL TREATMENT

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1745, 9 May 1913, Page 3

FACIAL TREATMENT

A PATIENT AND A BILL, (By Telegraph.—Prcsa Association.) Auckland, May 7. The efficiency of tho high frequency of electric tube treatment as a cure for facial defects was discussed at some length during tho hearing of a case by Mi. Kettle, S M„ in the Magistrate's Court this morning. Plaintiff in tho action, 0. Edwards, who described himself as secretary of the Auckland Massage and Electrical Institute Co., claimed the sum of Gs. from A. K. E. Bonnie for 22 weeks of ithe treatmcnt mentioned, at the rate of £* 2s. a week, less .£7 2s. received oil account Plaintiff stated that he commenced vo treat defendant for blackheads upon lllh face on-August 23 ffl^year, and continued tho treatment till December 7 fol'°Under cross-examination ho stated that the treatment was known as the 'ush frequency electric electric tube treatment," which consisted of massaging tho face and subsequent- application of electricity in the form of sparks from a tubo to the skin. Defendant statcrl tla venr ho became friendly with the plaintiff Edwards and several times ho took occasion to remark that witness s faco wat, disfigured and declared that, he could nut an end to the trouble. . Witness agreed to undergo treatment which Edwards sa d would take four or five weeks and would cost about m Defendant Mid that for tho first few weeks he used to go to lidwards for treatment six times a week, thourii later on ho went less frequentlj. In' November Edwards asked him for something on account and witness gave Clark stated that he was a specialist in skin complaints. Elcctricitj was at one time advocated as a cure for acne, but no brilliant results had over been obtained from its use. and it had been in abevaneo for ten or twelve years, He considered that it was quite an obsolete treatment. "I won't sav anything about the plaintiff's ability or his methods, said Mr. Kettle, in givinc judgment, that is not liiv concern ill this case. I am of omnioii that tho amount that tho defendant has paid is ample—perhaps far more than a sufficient return fnr the plaintiff s services. Judgment will be for tho defendant."