Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1880-05-23

INV York Times, |

pAS6'~f% - AASff'NNoA-t ~ Wy $3.50 wAN
be watched with interest by The legal
nrofessious N MI mnsyts ~ Tia counfrv
r, :. ~. a -, sn;, "a ~. s,,d ~ ..as.y
~ Inc hrs' sui'o' Tue k,uo Oh recoro'
but 10 the event OF the plaintiff's sue
cess Il will be BY no means the last.
Some time ago. Mr.. Finch. OF New.
bern. who is in tbs ieyelrv busine cas-.
to Miss Wnters' n vonnr
isdv with whom be was On frisndIv
terms' 4 beautifnI set or real lar Ths
isdv was verv anxious to own the sst
huf was mt Aria n, INV r. In th.ss
circu m sta nces M. Flnch pronosed a
novel kind OF bargain. Hs said that
~ wotrlfi Aell Mrs Wafara the ssf for
one dred ikisses. In he Maid al ira
rate of one klss daily onreach and
everv jav next erauinc frt,m the aiav
Of the date OF the agresment, except
ipg. nevertheless ea,h and every Sun.
dav thereafter. It was furthermore
provided that Mr., Finch was to call at
theg sladv's t,oupe avery morpinv. ex.
cent Sunday morning. TO receive his
daily kiss, witch Nj is Waters under.
took and promised to duly deliver to
him, This contract was not reduced
70 writing. but II was foil ' derstood
and agreed 10 by both parties. and the
set OF let v as rendered to Miss Waters
and accepted by her.
n The neat morning Mr.. Finch c,lled
on Miss Waters for his first kiss,
vhioh. IA the Young LADY, nov main.
tains. was folly Maid. Cd each subse-
quent morning, for thirty consecutive
excopted--the same 20.
were had. On the Tin, ".
tirst day, showever. Mr.. Finch ms.ea
formal complaint that Miss Waters
was not fulfilling her contract. iuas.t
much 90 she insist sd upon permitting
him to kiss her O neek only.S He MAIN
taiued that this did not constitute stls.
Ral kiss. aud he demanded that he
shouid be allowed to put his left arm
around Miss Waters waist and KRIS
her In the highest ct vie of the art. TO
this REQUEST q firm refusal was re-
turnsd. The, lady sxpressed her
to carry out her agree.
ment.' 40 far as her cheek ! was con.
cernad and even offered IN olive Mr..
Finch his choice of acheeks, hut she
Insisted that The eantract vo,,ld mt
hear the condensation mt unon A nv
Mr.. Finch. and that she would never
submit 10 suoh a construction. There.
upof, Mr.. Finch. in great indignation.
taft Ihe house. and brought an action
Of breach of contract against the
ladv.
This action raises several new and
ouestinps. among the most
lm portant OF which is, What consti.
rutes, In the eve of the law. a kiss
The testimony of several ex merits ia To
be Introduced by the pIsintiff; but,
nithough those experts will nrobshlv
.tar, out with the assertion that a ,ss
10 tina. which Is inn pressed by one pair
Of ljps upen another pair. thew will
.ubseo ueutIy be compelled to admit.
on crosse animation. that one pair oil
n ia alone mny imprint n kiss unon
spv ACCESSIBLE obi ct. Thts seems' at
fir.t s,sht. fatal to the plaintiff's claim
that the defendant did moi furnish him
with lawful current h isses. bat 1t must
he noticed that he sets IN the farther
olea that there Ia a differences between
sctive and passive kisses; that Mise
Waters % promised to give him a certain
quantity Of kisres---not to permit him
% take them-and that giving hi s-s
is an act which REQUIRES the use OF the
ipr. THIS is certainly a strong point,
and though the court NAV decide that
here Ia no one variety Of kiss which
can be held 10 bs the only hiss known
10 the common law, IL NAV give an
.u,horitati7e def,niiion of an active
kiss which will be of i'm mense service
10 man kind. 3
Itis, main tained BY counsel for the
defendant that there was o contract
between the parties, for The reason
hat kisses can not constitu o va fl
ion. The decision on this
yoint will be eagerly waited for. That
kiss Ia sometbipg which can be
,iven willingly or taken by force, and
hat II IL c0sou,only ,eputsd To DOS, ess
more or 4. 80 Intrinsic value, are points
y hjch the plaintiffs counsel will clio
,uenlly maintain. Hence It seems
nat q Hiss % ay be q valuable and SUI
icient consideration upon which to |
base q contrsct. % the other hand, 1t |
. asserted that courts have never re.
,ognized q kiss ss property capable Of
,eing stolen. and that W hen a kiss has
Il Gu eizsd by violence the only rem.
.dy Of the Injured person IL al aciloD |
or assault. Ii 10 evident that we have
lere a, question which admits of D
asst amount OF argument, aud that lie |
udiciaI decision will mark an era In
,ur common Law iurisprudence.
There is still al other defense upon
which the defendants counsel Is up-
ierstood TO place great reliance. tits
damned that even II there was n valid
,ontract between the parties, and "
he defendant did break II, the |