The Hawaiian gazette., 1880-11-10
3aluaiiarl 0aEettf.
WEDNESDAY, NONENBER 10, 1850.



There Ia very important lawsuit in prcgrese
in Newborn, n. e.. observes the NJ Y. Fses,
which viii he watched with interest by the le-
gal profession in all parts Of the country.
Some time ago Mr.. Finch, Of Newborn, who IS
in the lewelry business, exhibited 10 Miss
Waters, y0asg lady with WHOM be was on
friendlv terms, beautiful sci Of real Jet. The
lady was very anxious 10 own the set, but was
not able 10 buy IT, In these circumstances
Mr.. Finch proposed n novel kind Of bargain
He said be 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 ersaing IRON
the day Of the date Of the agreement, except
ing. nevertheless, each and every Sunday
thereafter. II was further provided that Mr.
Finch was to call at the laay's house every
morning. except Sunday morning, 10 receive
his daily kiss, which Miss Waters undertook
and promised 70 duly deliver 20 him. Thus
contract was not reduced 70 writing, oatlt was
fully understood and agreed toby both parties
and the set Of JET was rendered 70 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 maintained, was
fully raid. On each subsequent morning. 50
consecutive days-Suniays excepted-the
same proceedings were had. On the Slstday,
however, Mr.. Finch made \ formal complaint
that Miss Waters was not fulfilling her con-
tract, irasmuch as she insisted upon permit
ting him to kiss her cheek only. He main
tanned that this did not constitute legal KISS,
and be demanded that be should be allowed 10
nat bis left arm around Miss Waters waist,
and kiss her in the highest style Of the art
To this request = hrm refusal WAS returned.
The lady professed her willingness to carry
ous her agreement so sar as her cheek was
eoaeerned, ard even offered 10 give Mr.. Finch
his choice Of cheeks, bat she insisted that the
contract would not bear The construction put
upon il BY Mr.. Finch, and that she would
never submit to such construction There
upon Mr.. Finch, in great indignation, brought
an action for breach Of contract sgSinst the
lady. This action raises several new and IN
teresting questions, snOng the most important
Of which IS, What constitutes, IN the eye Of
the law. kiss The testimony Of several
experts Is to be introduced by the plaintiff /;
but, although all those experts will probably
start out With the assertion that kiss is that
which IS Impressed by one pair Of lips upon
another pair, they viii subsequently De impel-
led 10 admit on erUss-examinztio1 that one
pair Of lips alone may imprint = kiss upon an
accessible object. This seems, AZ first sight,
fatal to the plaintiffs claim that the defendant
did not furnish him with lawful current kisses,
but it must be noted that he sets up the further
plea that there Is = difference between active
and passive kisses; that Miss Waters pro-
missed TO give him certain quantity of kisses
not TO permit him to take them and that
giving kisses Is an act which requires the use
OF the lips This Is certainly strong point,
and though the Court may decide that there is
no one variety Of kiss which can be held ID
be the only kiss known to the common law, ii
may give an authoritative definition Of IN Sc-
tive kiss which will be Of immense service 10
mankind There Is still another defence upon
which the defendants counsel Is understood to
place great reliance. Il Is claimed that even
If there was j valid contract between the par
ties, and if the defendant did break il. the
plaintiffs proper remedy IS not an action for
breach OF eontract, hut i bill in equity for
specific performances. Probably the plaintiff
would 1--we been wise had be resorted 10 the
latter course. In case Of bis success, he would
then have received specified Quantities Of def
mite kisses OF Que kind or another, and would
thus have gained substantial victory. As
II Is. his triumph in his action for breach Of
contract would doubtless bring him only a
nominal sum by way Of damages, and would
render 1t necessary for him to institute fresh
proceedings In order 10 gain possession OF the
jeWeIFy. Still. it by no means follows that
becEuse be Eay have remedy IN equity he
has no remedy AZ law, and 1t is reasonably
certain that if there vas i contract between
himself and the defendant an action for breach
Of It VII lie