Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1907-12-19
Montour American.


IHH Value III hiss.
what 81. tHe cotumetr al value OF =
stolen ki.sg That " question which
various iarips have considered with.
out mai ipr ANY substantial cUutrihu.
sion 70 the wofll'. enlightenment.
The latest case "a which this diilicult
problem was PRESENTED is that wiieh
las Just besu engaging the attention
of court of justice ~ Ncwbufgh \
Y. Here tue defendant was Mr john
J Soiuell. ~ one time IRE commis-
sioner Of New York Oity Mr.. Scan
noll was charged by a Mrs. Laura
White with having kissed her twice
against her will. She said In her com.
plant that he came up behind her
nut his arm around her " tist aud kiss.
ed her on the lips before she had a
chance 10 prevent him. The expert
ence seems t0 have been satisfactory,
for. according TO the plaintiffs state
ment. the said Scannell "of malice
aforethourht and being hereto instiR
atcI by the DEVIL immed lately re.
peated the performance, although VII,
thc kissee was not by this time sufiioi-
entity upon her guard to repel this en-
core is not oonvincingly explained.
Pre- .umably she had been 50 much tax
en- aback by the mans audaoity as
temporarily to have lost the power OF
protection.
For this duplicated assault Mrs,
White reciting the injury which her
feelinps had sustained, invited SYM
pathetio jury to award her Sl5, 900
damages. Well, it didn't do it. The
iudge in his charge treated the action
as involving no more than question
of assault He did not invite or en-
power the jury to take any account OF
the pleasure which the defendant may
have derived from the irregular oscul-
alton attributed TO him. He told it
that the only issue was whether the
defendant had placed his hand upon
the plaintiff as alleged. II he had, no
matter how lightly, then an assault
had been committed for which dam
ages might be assessed. Thus illumin-
ated, it did not take the jury long to
reach a decision. and after having been
out an hour it brought in verdict for
the defendant on the ground that the
evidence had failed to disclose any
cause OF action.
This was a lame aud impotent con-
know what consideration determined
the iury's Judgment. Did it think
that the assault alleged had not been
proved, or was it of opinion that
stolen kiss is wrothless unless the theft
is condoned and approved by the party
of the second part? Other juries have
been contrary minded. A case is on
record in Wisconsin where five kisses
were appraised at $4,000 each, which
is certainly pretty stiff tariff. At the
other end of the scale Miss Theresa
Harvey, of Newark, who wanted $500
for six more or less chaste salutes-
surely modest appreciation-receiv,
ed from an unfeeling tribunal no more
than six cents In yet another case
tried at Ballston Spa, a suit TO recov'
er damages for breach of premise. in
the course of which it was shown that
1886 kisses had been given and receiv'
ed, resulted in verdict for $4,000,
which was at the rate of 81 Az pei
kiss. This case, however, is not on
all fours with the rest, as the dam
ages awarded were based, not on as
sault, but on a breach of contract.
1t is evident that no guiding prin
eiple can be deduced from the recorded
precedents, but the view of sensible
men will be that kiss which is mol
reciprocated is not worth continent
al cent.