The daily Cairo bulletin. (Cairo, Ill.) 1878-1???, 1880-06-05
ONE HUNDRED KISSES,

gIeSs IN NeWDeTn, N, u, WLiCn "iii NC
watched with interest by the legal profes-
sion in all parts of the country 1t is the
first suit of the kind on record, but in the
event of the plaintiffs success il will be by
no means the last.
Some time ago Mr.. Finch, of Newbern,
who is in the jewelry business, exhibited,
to Miss Waters, young lady with whom
he was on friendly terms, beautiful set OF
real jet. The lady was very anxious TO own
the set, but was not able to buy it. In
these circumstances Mr.. Finch proposed
novel kind of bargain. He said that he
would sell Miss Waters the set for 100
kisses, to be paid at the rate of one kiss
daily on each and every day next ensuing
from the day of the date of the agreement,
excepting. nevertheless, each and every
Sunday thereafter. 1t was furthermore
provided that Mr.. Finch was TO call at the
ladys house every morning, except Sunday
morning, to receive his daily kiss, which
Miss Waters undertook and promised TO
fully deliver to him. This contract was
not reduced to writing, but il was fully I'M
derstood and agreed to by both parties, and
the set of jet was rendered to Miss Waters
and accepted by her.
The next morning Mr.. Finch called on
Miss Waters for his first kiss which. as the
young lady, now maintains was fully paid.
On each subsequent morning, for thirty
consecutive days-SundaY excepted-the
same proceedings were had. On The thirty
first day, however, Mr. Finch made form
al complain that Miss Waters was not
fulfilling her contract inasmuch as she in
sisted upon permitting him to KISS her
cheek only. He maintained that this did
not constitute kiss, and he demanded
that he should be allowed to put his left
arm around Miss Waters waist and kiss
her in the highest style of the art To this
request firm refusal was returned. The
lady expressed her willingness to carry out
her agreement, so far as her cheek was con-
cerned, and even offered to give Mr.. Finch
his choice of cheeks, but she insisted that
the contract would not bear the construc-
ton put upon it by Mr.. Finch, and that she
would never submit to such construction.
Thereupon Mr. Finch, IN great Indignation,
left the house, and brought an action for
breach of contract against the lady.
This action raises several new and inter-
esting questions, among the most important
of which is, What constitutes, in the eyes
of the law, kiss? The testimony Of sever
al experts is to &c int. Oduced by the plain
| tiff; but, although these experts will prob.
| ably start out with the assertion that u kiss
is that which is impressed by one pair of
lips upon another pair, they will subse-
quently be compelled to admit, on cross-eS-
animation, that one pair of lips alone may
imprint kiss upon any accessible OBJECT
This seems, at first sight fatal tc the pain
tif's claim that the defendant did not fur
nish him with lawful current kisses, but II
must be noticed that he sets up the iurth-
er plea that there is difference between
active and passive kisses; that Miss Waters
promised TO give him certain quantity of
kisses-not to permit him to take him
and that giving kisses is an act which re-
Quires the use of the lips. This is certainly
a strong, and though the court may decide
that there is no one variety Of kiss which
can be held to be the only kiss known to
the common law, it may give an authorit-
alive definition Of an active kiss which will
be of immense service to mankind.
It is maintained by counsel for the de-
| iendant that there was no contract between
the parties, for the reason that kisses can
not constitute valid consideration. The
decision on this point will be eagerly wait
cd for. That kiss is something which
can be given willingly or taken by force,
and that il is commonly reputed TO possess
more or less intrinsic value, are points
winch the plaintiffs counsel will eloquent
ly maintain, Hence it seems that a kiss
may be valuable and sufficient considera-
ton upon which to base contract. On
the other hand it is asserted that courts
have never recognized kiss as property
capable Of being stolen, and that when q
kiss has been seized by violence the only
remedy Of the injured person is an action
for assault. 1t is evident that we have here
a question which admits Of vast amount
of argument, and that its Judicial decision
Will mark an era in our common law juris-
prudence.
There is still another defense upon
which the defendants counsel Is understood
to place great reliance. 1t is claimed that
even if there was valid contract between
the parties, and if the defendant did break
: it, the plaintiffs proper remedy is not an
} action for Il breach of contract, but bill
in equity for specific performance. Proba-
bly, the plaintiff would have been wise had
he resorted to the latter course. In case OF
his success, he would then have received
! specified quantities of definite kisses OF
one kind or another, and would thus hav,
, gained substantial victory As il is, his
| triumph in his action for breach Of con.
! tract would doubtless bring him only .
nominal sum by way Of damages and
, would render it necessary for him to insti
o tute fresh proceedings in order 10 gain pos.
session of the jewelry. Still, 1t by nj
means follows that because he may have {
remedy in equity he has no remedy at law
"A Il. a.. I. Al. Al