View report page

64
Pozzi, Pierre, 16, Lawrence Lane.
Schwefel, Carl, 45, Eastcheap.
.Szalay, Joseph Page, 8, Cullum Street.
Friedel, Franz, 35, Moorgate Street.
Hartmann, Carl, 5, Queen's Head Passage, Newgate Street.
Krajewski, Gustav, 137, Fenchurch Street.
Rudolph, Henry, 5, Crosby Square.
A number of other Hairdressers have applied for registration, and are
still under consideration.
There is a general movement of the City Trade towards increased attention
to sanitary matters, and the registration will undoubtedly give a feeling of
confidence to those who make use of these establishments ; there is also
indication of a growing desire on the part of Hairdressers in the City, and
especially those occupying the better class of saloon, to take advantage of the
Corporation's scheme of voluntary registration.
Cases have occurred where members of the Trade, who at first opposed
the movement, now recognise that it is of advantage to fall into line with
those who have been placed on the register, particularly where there is close
trade competition, even when so doing involves expenditure in carrying out
the sanitary requirements.
A case heard in the Marylebone County Court on the 1st January last
illustrates the importance—both from the customer's and tradesman's point of
view—of taking precautions against transmission of disease through the agency
of infected implements. The plaintiff in the case sued a barber and hairdresser
for damages in respect of his wages, pain, and suffering sustained through an
attack of barber's rash, which it was alleged was contracted on the defendant's
premises. The Jury awarded the plaintiff 15/. damages and costs.
It is not too much to say that a similar cause for action cannot arise in
connection with any of the registered Hairdressers in the City, while it is
clearly shown by the above case that in unregistered places of business or in
those where no proper antiseptic precautions are taken, not only is the
customer liable to contract disease, but the proprietor of the business is
rendered liable for heavy damages as a consequence.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ACT,
1905.
The Bill, as introduced, contained certain clauses relating to the prevention
of Tuberculosis and infectious disease caused by contaminated milk, which were,
with certain modifications, a reproduction of clauses introduced for similar
purposes in the London County Council (General Powers Bill) for 1902, with
regard to which I reported at length to the Sanitary Committee in January,
1905.
* These premises have been closed since registration.