LADIES' HAIR DRESSING

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 137, 6 December 1929, Page 16

LADIES' HAIR DRESSING

CLAIM AGAINST FIRM FAILS

A claim for £100 damages brought by Miss. I. Cook against Stamford and Co., Ltd., which occupied the attention of Mr. E. Page, S.M., all day Tuesday, was concluded iv the Magistrate's Court yesterday, judgment being entered for the defendant. ■

The plaintiff claimed that she had paid £52 to.the defendant firm on their undertaking to teach her thoroughly fifteen specified brandies of ladies' hail-dressing and toilet salon work. She alleged that they .had committed a breach of contract, first in not permitting her to practice on the customers and by requesting that she should find her own models, and secondly that they had failed to teach her thoroughly any one of the fifteen specified branches of_ the business. She therefore claimed a return of her premium and £4S damages.

Evidence was called for the plaintiff to show generally that the teaching had not been thorough, and that the plaintiff had difficulty in getting sufficient practice during her tuition. Expert evidence was called by the plaintiff as to tests which she had undergone to support her allegation that her training had been insufficient. For the defendant company evidence was given that the plaintiff had received more tuition than the average pupil, and had also had the tuition from an expert in the defendant company's employ, who had been paid a special- fee to give Ker tuition.

After hearing the evidence of the defendant company's manager at Wellington, the Magistrate intimated that on the view he took of the evidence the plaintiff had failed to prove any breach by the defendant company of their obligation to teach. The plaintiff's object was to obtain tuition so that she could eventually take a billet. It appeared that she was satisfied when she left the defendant company to go to a lu'ilet which had been found for her. Viewing the whole case, he had come to the conclusion that no breach of contract had been proved, and judgment would bo entered for the defendant.

Mr. W. H. Cunningham, counsel for the defendant, said that in view of. the plaintiff's circumstances, he did not ask for costs.

Mr. P. H. Putnam appeared for the plaintiff.