The Danger of Osculation.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 217, 6 January 1874, Page 6

The Danger of Osculation.

The New York Court of Appeals has just affirmed the decision of the Brooklyn City Court in the case of Bom an v. Earle. This decisoin practically abolishes kissing, in affixing thereto the penalty of matrimony at the discretion of the kissee. To thousands of gay'butterflies and pretty innocents this news will be of deep and painful interest. The story of the case is the following:—A few months ago Miss Hoxelana Homan brought a suit in our neighbouring city of breach of promise against Mr Alexander Earle, a pros- i perous merchant. Mr Earle imagined that before Lloxelana could gain her case she must make tire promise appear. He denied it, and rested calmly “just like a man” upon the law and logic of the matter. Miss Homan ad mitted there was no promise, verbal or written, but founded her claim upon the fact that Enrich ad frequently kissed her. While the unhappy man was congratulating- himself upon-his easy escape, his heart within him was turned to stone by these inconceivable words from the Bench, spoken by Judge Neilson, with measured accents, and low flapping ears, lie charged that no words were necessary to constitute an engagement. “ The gleam of the eye, and the touch of the lips,” said this light of jurisprudence, “ are overtures when they become frequent and protracted.” The jury, always eager to do a thing which shall at once be idiotic and gallant, gave lloxelana, 15,000 dollars for the wear and tear of her lips and affections. Of course the case was appealed, and the higher tribunal has promptly confirmed the I decision of the court below. It is therefore j the law at this hour in the state of New York that if a bachelor kisses a spinster, said spinj ster may safely claim his hands or his goods, j In cases where shyness and want of opportunity

iias iiruveiuuu huiucU oscuicitiuri, wie young j lady has still another string to her beau ; if she can show that he has ever “ shined his eye” in her direction, he is her lawful spoil, according to Judge Neilson. There is positively no protection for a bachelor except nose-bags and blind-bridles, and the ability to prove that he has never left them off. To this extent the future at least is secure. But how many bachelors can wake up in the night with the reflection that, like Sir Galahad, “ they never felt the kiss of love, or maiden’s hand in theirs ‘I” If any such there be, sweet must be his sleep ; but if in his memory lurks any record of early spoons, how harrowing must be the thought that he is the promised spouse of every girl he has ever idly saluted. There are young men to-day universally beloved and respected, the cynosures of Sunday-schools and the delight of evangelical tea parties, who in the clear vision of Judge Neilson arc no bettter than Priam, King of Troy, or Brigham, Patriarch of Salt Lake. The practical results of this momentous decision are appalling. No youth who values his liberty will suffer himself to be kissed except by a lady who can show her marriage certificate, and bring proof that her husband is living. With this exception, this soothing and humanising amusement must be confined to the domestic circle, and the young man of | the future will be “doomed mere sisterly j salutes to feel, insipid tilings, like sandwiches j of veal.” —New York Tribune.