"BARBER'S RASH."

Taranaki Daily News, 15 July 1920, Page 5

"BARBER'S RASH."

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FAILS. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Auckland, Last Night. A somewhat unusual case came before Mr. Hunt, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court, when Bernard L. Arrowsmith sued Harry Cleal to jecover £llß 6s. Plaintiff stated that on March 17th, 19'9, defendant of his servant shaved plaintiff, and it was alleged that as a result of such shaving plaintiff contralted barber's rash. This was also alleged to be du« to the neglect of defendant or his servant. Plaintiff claimed he had lost eight weeks' worh as an engineer, and also had suffered great pain and anguish of mind &nd boijy, and had incurred medical expenses Plaintiff therefore claimed £6O damages, £56 for the loss of eight weeks' work at £7 per week, £lO 10s for medical attendance, and £1 15s for medicines, a total of £llß ss.

Mr. Hunt, after reading the statement of claim, remarked: "No wonder they put up the price of shaving." Evidence was given by plaintiff that he went "to defendant's saloon to get his .hair cut. He then thought he would have a shave, and asked if care was taken. The man answered that the brushes were sterilised occasionally. Witness was then shaved . He returned on his, ship, and later spots began to show on his face. Upon seeing a doctor he was informed it was barber's rash.

Dr. Hagen, of Devonport, who attended plaintiff, stated that plaintiff suffered "from what was cp'led barber's rash.

Dr. Carrick Robertson, surgeon, on behalf of defendant, stated that staph-rylo-coerci, which were the source of infection, were common organisms, and no relation could be shown between the barber's brush and the infection.

Dr. Milsom considered the germs could be picked up as easily in a street as in a shop, and could also be introduced into an abrasion on the face by contact with hands. A slight abrasion on skin might have been introduced during shaving, but the germ was probably introduced afterwards. Dr. McDiarmid stated that he ha'l only made an examination after curse was effected. It tws mqre inference to* say the disease was "barber's , which name several authorities stated was a misnomer. Henry John Cleal Btated that every possible precaution was taken, and he had never seen a case of "barberV rash," They used about 1000 towels and 500 head brushes in his establishment. Each article was never used twice without being first washed in strong soda watoi' and lysol. After hearing counsel Magistrate