Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/376

 Hair. The combing of a superfluity of hair should not be done in public, when it will annoy others. The "Seven Sutherland Sisters were in the habit of combing and dressing their hair in a shop window; the crowds of astonished gazers who congre gated in front of the exposed toilet to ad mire the wondrous tresses of the ladies, ob structed the entrance to the store next door. The Court was appealed to and put a stop to the exhibition. (Elias v''. Sutherland. 18 Abb. (N. Y.) C. Cas. 126.) Chemists should be careful as to the kind of hair dye or wash they sell, husbands should be chary about buying such stuff for their wives, and women should trust to na ture alone. In 1869 Joseph George went into the shop of Skivington, the chemist, who professed to sell a chemical compound made of ingredients known only to him, and which he represented to be fit and proper to be used for washing the hair, which could and might be used without personal injury to the person so using, and to have been carefully and skillfully and properly com pounded by him, the said Skivington, the chemist; and Joseph George bought of Skivington, and Skivington sold to George at a certain price a bottle of the said compound to be used by George's wife Emma for wash ing her hair, as the chemist then knew, and •on the terms that the same was fit and proper to be used, and could be safely used by her for the purpose aforesaid, without personal injury to her, and had been skil fully, carefully and properly compounded by the said chemist; yet the chemist had so unskilfully, negligently and improperly con ducted himself in and about making and selling the said compound that by the mere unskilfulness, negligence and improper con duct of the chemist the said compound was not fit or proper to be used for washing the hair, nor could it be so used without personal injury to the person using the same; and by reason of all this Emma, who

329

used the said compound for .washing her hair pursuant to the terms upon which the same was sold by the chemist, was by using the same injured in health, etc. Thus, Mr. and Mrs. George told their story when they sued the chemist, Skivington. Skivington said, in effect, "What if Г did?1' But Chief Baron Kelly and three other Barons, con sidered that there was a duty on the vendor Skivington to use ordinary care in com pounding this wash for the hair and gave judgment for the Georges, holding that their declaration contained a good cause of action. (L. R. 5 Exch. i.) What the compound was we are not told, what it did we know not. But all legal stu dents know what the effect of the Cyanochaitanthropopoion and the Tetaragmenon Abracadabra of the fashionable perfumer and perruquier of Bond street in turning the red hair of Mr. Tittlebat Titmouse, by way of green and purple, into black; those who don't know will find the whole story in the report of the case by Sir Samuel Warren. That great lawgiver of the far East, Manu, in his directions as to the choice of a wife, lays it down that a Hindoo of the upper classes must not marry a woman that has thick hair on her body, or one who has red dish hair, or one whose head has less or more than the usual quantity of locks. An other, Pundit, Vyasa, says that a man must not marry a girl who shows signs of an in cipient beard, or whose eyebrows hang low, or who has too much hair. Short hair has often been regarded as a symbol of chastity. Every Buddhist novice has to cut off his locks to prove that he is willing to give up the most beautiful and highly prized of his ornaments for the sake of a religious life; and in ancient Mexico both men and women who adopted such a life had their hair cut. In Sparta and Athens, as well as among the Anglo-Sax ons, the newly married wife had her locks shorn. On the other hand one of the charges