Heitz v. Bridge Et Ux.

Opinion by

Hirt, J.,

Plaintiff is a licensed operator specializing in treatment of the scalp. Defendants’ son, then about ten years Old, was completely bald and was brought to plaintiff by big father. Between May 1, 1941 and April 10, 1942, plaintiff gave the boy 150 treatments and by the end of the period, (whether because of them is immaterial) he had grown a normal head of hair. On each occasion the father also received a scalp treatment. Plaintiff’s charges for all services to both amounted to $684. In this action to recover that amount, it was not established that plaintiff’s charges were…