Louisiana capitolian., 1880-06-05

|
ably start ont with the assertion that a
kiss is that which is impressed with
one pair Of lips upon another pair, they
will consequently be compelled to ad-
nit on cross examination that one pair
of lips alone may imprint kiss upon
any accessible object. This seems, at
first sight, fatal to tho plaintiffs claim
that tho defendant did not furnish him
with lawfu current kisses, but it must
bo noticed that ho sets up tho further
plea that there 10 y difference between
active and passive kisses; that Miss
Waters promised to give him certain |
quantity of kisyes-not to permit him
to take them--sud that giving kisses 10
.n oct which requirss the uss Of the
hps. This b esrsataly 1aoA Asia1y I
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, 1t may give an nu-
thoritative definition Of an active kiss,
which will be Of immense service to
mankind.
IT is maintained by counsel for the de-
feudant that there was no contract be-
tween the parties, for the reason that
kisses caanot constitute valid consid:
Grafton. The decision on this point will
be eagerly waited for. That kiss is
something which can be given willingly
or taken by force, and that it is com.
monty reputed to possess more or less
intrinsic value, are points which the
plaintiffs counsel will eloquently main
tain. Hence, it seems that kiss may
be valuable and sufficient consideration
upon which to base q contract. On tho
other hand, it is asserted that courts
have never recognized kiss US prop
erty capable of being stolen, and that
when q kiss has been seized by violence
the only remedy of tho injured person
is an action for assault. 1t is evident
that we have here a question which ad-
mits of u vast amount of argument, and
that its judicial decision will mark an
era in our common law Jurisprudence.
There is still another defense upon
which the defendants counsel is under.
stood to place great reliance. 1t il
claimed that even il there WAS a valid
contract between the parties, and il the
defendant did break it, the plaintiff
proper remedy 10 not an action fol
breach of contract, but bill in equity
for specific performance. Probably th'
plaintiff would have been wise had HI
resorted to tho latter course. In case 0
his success, be would then have received
specified quantities of definite kisses o
> one kind or another, and would thus
have gained substantial victory. As j
J il, his triumph in his action for breac
y of contract would doubtless bring hin
' only q nominal sum by way Of damages
{ and would render it necessary for hin
: to institute fresh proceedingsin order t
u gain possession Of the jewelry. Still,
by no means follOwsthat because he ma
+ have remedy in oqnity no hos no RENE
u dy ut law, and it is reasonably certai
y that if fthere WAS q contract betwee
Q himself and defendant an action fo
, breach of it will lie.
:, There aremany ignorant persons VIII
" fancy that the law is dry, prosaic b
J siness. This action, however, prove
~ ~ the contrary. The questions at issue
o Finch against Waters come home I
;, every mouth in the country. There
~ at present most lamentable vaguene
~ of belief as to what constitutes ks
~ and o. to it's precise legal status. "
" shall now have these questions decide
and the social interests Of the comm
," nifty cannot fail 10 be vastly benefitt
-. thereby.