The south Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1879-1883, 1880-05-25
The Law Of Kissing.
New York Times

means the last. Some time ago Mr..
Finch, OF Newborn, who is III the
jewelry business, exhibited 10 Miss
Waters, young lady with whom lie
was Oh friendly terms, n beautiful set
of real jet. The lady was very anx-
ious 10 own the set, but was not able
TO buy it. In these circumstances
Mr.. Finch proposed q novel kind OF
bargain, lie said he would sell Miss
Waters the set for one hundred liss-
es, TO he paid at the rate of one kiss
daily on each and every day next en-
suing from the day OF the agreement,
excepting, nevertheless, each and ev-
cry Sunday thereafter. II was fur
ther provided that Mr.. Finch WAS TO
call al the lady's house every morn
ing, except Sunday morning, 20 re-
ceive his daily kiss, which Miss Wa
tiers undertook and promised TO duly
deliver TO him. This contract was
not reduced to writing, but it was
fully understood and agreed TO by
both parties, and The set of jewelry
was rendered TO Miss Waters and ac-
repsed 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 con-
secuiive days-Sundays excepted
the same proceedings were had. On
the thirty-first day however, Mr.
Finch made formal complaint that
Miss Waters was not fulfilling her
contract, inasmuch as she insisted on
permitting himto kiss her cheek only :.
lie maintained that this did NOT
constitute legal kiss and he de-
inanded that he should be allowed TO
put his arm around Miss Waters
waist and kiss her in the highest
ttyle OF the art. To this request q
firm refusal was returned. The lady
protested her willingness TO carry
out her agreement, SO far as her
cheek was concerned, and even. Of
tered 10 give Mr.. Finch his choice OF
checks, but she insisted that the COLI
tract would not bear the construction
put upon it by MIR. 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
interesting questions, among the
most important of which is "What
constitutes, in the eye OF the law, a
kiss?" The testimony of several ex.
perts is TO be introduced by the
plaintiff; but, although all these ex-
yerts will probably start out with the
assertion that kiss is that which is
Impressed upon one pair of lips b,
another pair, they will subsequently
be compelled TO admit on cross ex-
animation that one pair Of lips alone
may imprint kiss upon any accessi-
BILE object. This seems, at first sight.
fatal to the plaintiffs claim that the
defendant did not furnish him. with
lawful current kisses, but it nust be-
noticed that he sets up the further
plea that there is difference be-
tween active and passive kisses; that
Miss Waters promised TO give him a
certain quantity not TO permit him
10 take them and that giving kisses
is an act which requires the use of
the lips. This is certainly a strong
point, and though the court may de-
eide that there is 10 one variety OF
kiss which can be held to be the only
kiss known to the common law, il
may give an authoritative definition
OF an active kiss which will be OF i'm
mense service to mankind. II is
maintained by counsel for the defend.
ant that there was no contract be-
tween the parties, for the reason that |
kisses cannot constitute valid con-
alteration. Tne decision on this
point will be eagerly waited for.
That kiss is something which can
be given willingly and taken by force
and that 1t is commonly reputed to
possess more or less intrinsic value,
are points which the PLAINTIFF coun-
sci will eloquently maintain. Hence
and sufricicnt cons;jera,;on mon
which IN base \ cnn.ract IN t ,ba
other hand, IL is asserted that courts
have never recognized kiss as prop
when a kiss has been se;yed hv r;o
leuce The only remedy Of tho ;u;ursd
person ia an action for ossonl, I, ;s
evident that we have bers a nrest;n,
which admits ot n wat amo,,n, of
uument md that i,s ;ud;c;si dsc;.;nr
will marx an era In our com,non 10 ~
;nrisnrndence "
There il still another defenoe ,,or
which tbe dclendant,s connsel ia pn
derstood to Mace great rel;ance 7,
Ia claimed that ovsn If tbora mos
valid contract botween Tho nor,;oa
and If Inc defepdant ala breat i, ,hs
plaintiff's proner remedy ia MOI on
action for breach of contract but
bill in eouitv for snoc;fic MARIO, mancs
Probable tie nja;ni;ff wnnia ha,,o
been wise had he resorted n Tho ,o,
Ier conrse Tn case ofbis snceoss, ho
would then have receivod snoo;sod
nuantiiies of defnite t;ases ~ n~a
Kind or the another. and won,d tins
have GAINED a Substantial wi, tow
Az Il Is his triumph in lis action for
breach of contract would donbtIoss