The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-05-26
ONE HUNDRED KISSES.
New York Times

/ New York Tines
| There i q very important lawsuit in pro
+ rrezs in Newbern, \. C., which will be
watched with interest by the legal profes-
. sion IN ali parts Of the country. 1t Is the
first suit Of the kind on record, but in the
event of the plaintiffs success II will by 10
means be the last.
some time ago Mr. Finch, Of Newbern,
who i in the iewelrv business. exhibited u
Miss " alters. a young lady with whom he
was on friendly terms, beautiful set Of real
jet. The lady was very anxious 70 own the
set. but was not able - buy II. In these
circumstances Nr. Finch proposed a novel
kind of bargain. He said that he would sell
Miss Waters the set for one hundred kisses,
to be paid at the rate Ofone kiss daily on
. each and every day next ensuing from the
day OF the date OF the agreement, excepting,
/ nevertheless each and every Sunday there
after. Il was furthermore provided that
Mr. Finch was to call at the Iadv's house
. every morning. except sunday morning, to
/ receive his daily kiss, which Miss Waters
/ undertook and promised TO duly deliver TO
. him. This contract was not reduced 10
/ writing. rut il was fully understood and
/ agreed to by both parties, and the set of jet
/ VS. rendered 10 Miss Waters and accepted
/ by Der.
/ 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 con-
secutiye days-Suudays excepted-the same
I proceeding were had. On the thirty~tirst
/ day. however Mr. Finch made a formal
/ complaint that Miss Waters was not full
/ filling her contract, inasmuch as she insist
Ell upon permitting him TO kiss her cheek
only. He maintained that this did not con
stitute a legal kiss, and he demanded that he
.isr tafr
Miss Waters waist and kiss her in the high
est stvle Of the art. To this request firm
refusal was returned. The lady expressed
her willingness to carry out her agreement,
SD far rs her cheek was c0ucered, and even
offered to give Mr.. Finch his choice of
cheeks, but she insisted that tine contract
would not bear the construction 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 eye of
the law q kiss? The testimony of several
experts is to be introduced by the plaintiff;
bur. although 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 will su5seq uently
be compelled to admit, on cross~eXamina-
ton, that one pair of lips alone may imprint
q kiss upon any accessible object This
seems, at first sight, fatal to the plaintiffs
claim that the defendant did not furnish
him with lawful current kisses, but it must
be noticed that he sets up the further plea
that there is q difference between active and
passive kisses; that Miss Waters promised
to give him a 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 certainty strong
point 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 com
mon law, it may give an authoritative de-
iinition Of an active kiss which Will be of
immense service to mankind.
1t is maintained by counsel for the
defendant that there was no contract
between the parties, for the reason that
kisses can not constitute a valid cOnsidera-
ton The decision on this point will be
eagerly waited for. That kiss IS some
thing which can be given willingly or taken
by force, and that it is commonly reputed to
possess more or less intrinsic value, are
points which the plaintiffs counsel will
eIoquentlv maintain. Hence it seems that |
a kiss may be valuable and sufficient consid- |
Grafton upon which to base a contract. On
the other hand, it is asserted that courts
have never recognized kiss as property
capable of being stolen, and that when a
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 a vast amount |
of argument, and that its judicial decision
will mark an era In our common law iuris- |
prudence.
There is still another defense upon which |
the Defendants counsel is understood to |
,at.4 hot
even If there was q valid contract between |
the parties, and if the defendant did break |
it, the plaintiff proper remedy Is not an |
action for q breach of contract, but bill in |
equity for specific performance. Probably |
the plaintiff would have been wise had he |
res0rted to the latter course. In case of his |
success. he would then have received speci- !
fed quantities of definite kisses Of one kind |
or another, and would thus have gained a |
substantial victory. As it is, his triumph |
in his action for breach of contract would |
doubtless bring him only nominal sum by |
way of damages, and would render it neces-
sary for him to institute fresh proceedings |
in order to gain possession of the jewelry. |
Still it by no means follows that because he |
may have remedy in equity ne has no |
remedy at law, and it is reasonably certain
that if there was contract between him
self and the defendant an action for breach |
Of it will lie.
There are many ignorant persons who |
fancy that the law is dry, pros,lic business.
This action, however, proves the contrary.
The questions at issue in Finch against |
Waters come home to every mouth in the |
country. There IS at present most lamen- |
table yagueness Of belief as to what consti- |
tutes a kiss and as to its precise legal status
We shall now have these questions decided, |
and the social interests of the community |
can not tail 10 be vastly benefited thereby. |