BEAUTIFIERS IN DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2669, 26 November 1909, Page 7

BEAUTIFIERS IN DISPUTE.

AN INTERESTING CASE. [Per Press Association.] - WELLINGTON, Nov. K>. Hair physicians and face specialists, with their understudies, in such lines r as manicuring, 'hair-dressing, and electrolysis, gave the Supreme Court sur- > roundings.: anUnusually bright aspect yesterday. Their presence was due to the hearing of a case, removed from the Magistrate’s Court, in which the plaintiff was Elizabeth'Milsom, and the defendant was Maud Baldwin, who were represented by Messrs A. Gray and Blaif* respectively. It was stated by Mr. Gray, in opening plaintiff’s case, that his client, at Miss Baldwin’s special request, and as a favor, undertook to teach Miss Baldwin the “profession” 1 for a premium of £l5O, Miss Baldwin haying intimated that she would not practise in New Zealand, as she intended to go back to Scotland. In consideration'of the premium, Miss Baldwin was freed from routine work, and her progress was rapid. One day she told Miss Milsom that she was not going back .to Scotland. She intended to start in Napier, “But you must not do that; for you told me you wore going back to Scotland,” was Miss Milsom’s reply. Defendant answered that the agreement which had been drawn up only barred her from starting in "Wellington province. This was found to he actually tlio- case. Afterwards there was a question raised as to whether Miss Milsom had agreed to give her pupil the statement of ingredients used in six compounds made specially lor plaintiff from recipes supplied by her as a result of her own experiment and research. Plaintiff answered that she had never agreed to give these to defendant, who could secure for herself other preparations from proprietaries. When plaintiff refused to .supply these recipes the defendant intimated that she would nob pay the money unless copies of the recipes were handed over to her. Not long afterwards Miss Baldwin went to Napier, and began business there. Miss Milsom now sued for the £l5O. Miss Milsom denied that there had been any understanding on her part at . any time to hand over to Miss Baldwin the recipes for her special preparations. A knowledge of them was not essential to a thorough understanding of her business. The defence was that Miss Baldwin had been induced to enter into tho agreement ..through misrepresentations, as she was given to understand the sum of money she was to pay would be remuneration to plaintiff for complete instruction in her business, and she could not be fully instructed and become properly expert unless she was made acquainted with the ingredients of the secret prescriptions Miss Milsom used. • . , , . Eventually the claim was reduceo to £75, and judgment was entered for that amount.