TONSORIAL TRAGEDY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2886, 21 May 1925, Page 2

TONSORIAL TRAGEDY.

TOILET EXPERTS TO PAY DAMAGES. Auckland, Yesterday. Alleging that her hair had been improperly treated, Miss Lilian Thomas, hoarding-house keeper, of Auckland, proceeded in the Supreme Court against Miss Maud Hanna and Mrs Marie Antoinette Stewart, toilet experts, carrying on business under the style of “Miss McElwain," claiming £B9 for medical and other expenses, £4O for loss of profits on her hoardinghouse, and £7)11(1 for general damages. The case wa> heard by Mr Justice llerdman and a jury. The action was on an alleged breach of contract, said Mr. liulcr, who appeared for the plaintiff. Either the preparation referred to was not used, or it was improperly u-od. That was the plaintiff's assertion. The preparation ordered was a harmless chemical compound list'd for dyeing hair. The other mixture was a preparation that had given rise to similar netinos in other countries. Plaintiff stated in evidence that: in 1!)2() her hair had been treated by Miss McElwain. On going to the toilet rooms in 1924, witness arranged with Miss Stewart to receive treatment. Mrs. Stewart said they employed a quick process. Treatment, which was exactly similar to that previously used, but was affective more quickly. On the day when treatment was given witness was attended by an assistant, and Mm noticed that the preparation bad a different smell. The assistant, in reply to a question, said it was the correct preparation. Witness's hair was not, washed prior to the treatment. Twenty minutes after the application the assistant Miampooed her hair. On the way home on the trnmear witness felt an irritation under her hat; next day Hie was greatly irritated, and whenever she ran her lingers through her hair they came away damp, and the hair came out quite easily. Her ears were swollen. On the following day her condition was worse she called on Mrs. Stewart at her rooms, and showed her the t ondition of her hair. Witness told her she was going to the doc-

tor, Mrs Stewart suggested that tb preparation might lie washed o "itlt warm oil, hut witness pret'ei red to see a doctor. Airs Stewai -aid to he sure to send the hi . into her and she would settle i j Watne-ss thten went, to Dr. Endlets m-iger, who prescribed egg sintmpo nml castor oil, advising her agaii >i tin- use of warm olive oil. All Siewari applied egg and castor oi , hut it did not have the effect c I curing i he trouble. It gave relit for only a. few hours. On the da following witness's nose had swoi It'ii. so ihat it was a treniendou size, “half-way across her eyes”— : and her ears were “three time their present size.” On going t ilie toilet rooms that day ( Baim i day) the assistant said Airs Stew , art was not there, and she per -oiially had not got time to sliampo her head. On Monday witness re turned to Dr. Kndietsberger, wh look her to Dr. ALacky. Her con dil ion was now very bad, and sli could not get relief. Her head wa a mass of pus, and her ears wer - watering. Airs Stewart told wit ness that the only thing she eouli think of was that the girl had no irented her with the correct pre partition, but must have used ; brush with another substance on it Dr. Alacky ordered a nurse for witness, and she went home and la) unconscious for the whole of tin following week. Then she lost he eyesight- for a while. The wholi of her hair was removed, the liursi baling cut it off quite close to tin sculp. She was advised to get i second nurse, and Mrs Stewart cal led promising to pay for her services, and saying she would make i wig for her later, and give hei tieatment. The trouble spread, hei arms and neck broke out in sores, her left foot was affected, and hei eyelids cracked, and it was then that she lost her sight for a time. Witness staled that the preparation was intended to dye tier hah mid-brown. She removed her hat while giving evidence, revealing a light growth of grey hair. Inder crofcs-examinatiou plaintiff stated that she had never used anything but the preparation ordered. She had not used henna. I Lis Honour: What is the effect of henna 1 Air. (Quarterly: 1 understand it can be used to transform the hair to anything from green to the latest mauve. Cross-examined, witnests said that about 18 months previously, siie used “inccto" on the top of her head. She did not know the smell of henna. Two doctors gave evidence as to plaintiff's sufferings. They stated that a test with “malvina” and “ineeto” was made on plaintiff's arm. The former produced no irritation, but the latter caused severe inflammation. For the defence, Air Quarlley said that plaintiff had ,to prove that she got poisoning and that she got i| from the defendant’s treatment. A lady assistant would say that site gave the treatment for which plaintiff asked, and that she used a clean new brush, the sulphur in the preparation asked for was the cause of the trouble. Evidence as to the use of a perfectly clean brush was given. Olive Haokett, hairdresser, who applied the preparation, said that a new brush had been used. In her case, she said she had not followed the instructions of the manufact-

urers of the preparation, as it was not found necessary to do so. Mrs Marie Stewart, one of the defendants, said that when the plaintiff returned after the treatmein and complained that she had had trouble, she examined her head and found a slight inflammation on the forehead. Witness offered to use the olive oil treatment and shampoo to remove the stain, but she preferred to use a lotion given by the doctor. On the following day, plaintiff called again. Witness rubbed the sea ip and gave her a shampoo, upon which she said that Hie felt easier. Later, witness saw the plaintiff in the doctor’s rooms and said that if the preparation had caused the trouble her firm would pay the medical expenses. Cross-examined by Mr Inder, witness said that they experimented with a quick process method. As experts, they digressed from the instructions of the makers of the preparation, because they found the new method satisfactory. The jury found plaintiff's allegations proved and awarded special damages, £133 4s 4d and general damages £75. Mr Qiuirtley, for the defence, said lie would like time to consider the question of proceeding with a non-suit point. The Judge therefore adjourned the case for furt her consideration.