The evening world. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1887-1931, 1913-09-27

Tracy, who sued Samuel McCurdy 1
Tracy's affections.
IN st. Louis a few years ago Mrs.
Mary Mueller won verdict for the
same amount from her slster-in-law. a
dashing widow, who had won Mr.. Musl-
ier's heart away from her.
AFFECTIONS OF WIFE AND Hus.
BAND EQUAL IN JURiEs' EYES.
This would Indicate that the value Of
wife's affections Is exactly equal 70
mat of husbands. $1,000. Mrs Muel-
| Ter. however. drew a nice dlstinc elton in
her complaint against her s!ster.in-law
She asked for 81. 900 actual damages and
S%.00 punitive damaEes--in other words
she held her husbands love to be worth
s2'.o", and the fury agreed with her.
On the other haAd, . WOMAN
hating jury n 4rinoeton, Ina.. gave
damages Of one cent to Johl
A1eosn, who had sued his nsl6h.
Dor, william 8iisy. foe winning his
wife away from him. The farmer
asked for o2,ooo.
jury in Freehold. y. j.. gave 81. 900
to Donald 4. Manson Of Long Branch
Tor the default y: his wife's love-
In Milwaukee Mrs. Johanna Hussel-
mann received 81. 800 as compensation for
the loss OF her husbands affection. The
defendant was her own daughter. whom
she charged with winning the love Of
her step-father.
1. jury in Jackson. Miss. gave 10000
to Mrs. Mamie Dupriest Sively. who
charged her mother-in-law with inhu.
encing her husband against her. After
getting the Judgment Mrs. Sively elopeSi
with young Mr. Sively. but whether be-
fore or after she had collected damages
for his lost affections from her mother
!n-law was not reported.
In May, 1912. Mrs. Elizabeth Schaller OF
Philadelphia obtained a verdict Of e, go
against her mother.in-law.
In seattle In October, 1911. C. II. Keali-
her. formerly Of New York City. got q
verdict OF $4,000 against his father-in.
law, Charles Ross, for the loss OF his
wife's affections.
Prom these widely varying
values u viii BE- seen that ~ YET
no definite standard has been set
BY which the worth OF hushsnA's
love may ~ determined. Ths oaly
possible answer to the problem.
"Whst 10 the value Of . husbands
lover" 10 therefore "Anythiag from
one cent 70 $4,000, - the jury
plsasss."
And the same answer applies to the
lost love OF a wife.
TO partisan Of equal rights this
equality Of damage does not seem al
together fair. For when huband loses
his wife's love he Ii. so far az she In
concerned. absolutely bankrupt. A wife.
on the contrary. may be deprived OF
her husbands affection. but she has
still! her right to alimony. which cam
not be alienated save BY her own con-
duet.
A very interesting alienation suit was
that brought in 1911 by Mrs. William J.
Murphy OF Philads phia. against her
cook, Mary Iiennesy. Mrs. Murphy
declared at the time that it was Mary's
eyes and not her mullins that had won
her husband away from her.
Thsrs are women who would not
let LITTLE thing Ike the alienation
OF husbana's love interfere With
the smooth running o. the do
msstAo machinery. Good cooks ere
scarosr than good husbands and
harder 70 replace.
Not long ago young matron ex-
p!ained 10 her mother that she had
been obliged to discharge q treasured
maid because she was afraid Harold
WAS getting too much Interested in her. |
SHE FIRED THE WRONG PER.
SON. SAID MOTHER.
why didn't you IRE Harold in
steadr' replied Harohs mother-ln-law
scornfuly. You'll never get another
Rosie
Some justification OF the mother In
law Joke In furnished by tho frequency
with which tho mother OF a wife or Q
husband has been made the defendant
In alienation suits. But there Is evil
dence also that father-in-law 10 fairly
suocessful As sunderer Of loving
hearts. II verdicts of juries may be
taken into account II Il impossible to
forstsii whsthsr damaged affections are