As against the formidable array of evidence regarding the consequences of plaintiff's use of this shampoo, "we find only one attempt at contradiction. A stenographer employed by defendant stated that she had seen plaintiff's hair before June, 1922 and that it was "a kind of re-dish brown." Considering the witness's position and that this statement is contrary to that of several disinterested witnesses, with ampler. opportunities of observation, we do not feel called upon to discuss it further, but it seems hardly probable that had such been the colour, she would have asked a hair dresser to dye her hair a chesnut brown.
Since the question of plaintiff's credibility has been raised, we feel called upon to add that we took particular note of her demeanour while testifying and found it frank and convincing. But it would make little difference if her testimony regarding her condition were disregarded altogether. There is enough other evidence to show that her hair was irreparably damaged, if not ruined.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.