Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/131

 ю8

UNMARRIED LADIES.

BY R. VASHON ROGERS. THIS article is intended for the delecta tion, edification, warning, and instruc tion of those of the fair sex who never have been joined to any one in holy wedlock, — for this, according to Mr. Vice-Chancellor Hall, is the ordinary or primary meaning of the expression, " unmarried " ladies.1 So widows are not interested herein, any more than are femes coverts, and need not read these pages. "Spinster " is the addition in law pro ceedings usually given to all unmarried women, and it is a good addition for the estate and degree of a woman; but it is said a gentlewoman is to be named generosa, and not spinster, or it will be ill.2 Unmarried women often possess to a remarkable degree the Christian grace of perseverance. See, for instance, how they will cut a lot of holes in a piece of muslin, and then spend hours in sewing them up; how they will spend almost whole days buy ing a yard of ribbon of some particular hue. Miss Mary C. Felton, of Syracuse, N. Y., had this trait to an extraordinary degree; and Mr. W. Teal, the postmaster of that city, had full experience of her powers of holding on. The trouble between them came about in this way: A friend — whether male or female seems immaterial — sent Miss Mary a newspaper through the post. On the wrap per was a single letter or initial (suggestive, this, of a lady correspondent); the Arguseyed official espied this, and true to his ideas of his duty as a collector of revenues for the Republic, demanded postage at letter rates. Miss F. considered Mr. T. was in the wrong, and tendered the sum payable for a news paper; and as the postmaster would not accept this, she brought an action against him to recover her paper. The justice of

1 the peace, who had the pleasure of trying ' this action, considered that the mark or let ter was not such a " writing or memoran dum " as was forbidden by the Act of March 3, 1825,' and that instructions from the Postal Department imposing a penalty for placing ' any " mark or sign " upon the newspaper wrapper were illegal, and did not warrant ! the detention of the paper, and so gave the j fair claimant six cents damages and $2.89 costs. The postmaster, dissatisfied, went further and fared worse; for the Court of Common Pleas decided against him, with $22.95 additional costs. Then up the case went to the Supreme Court of the State; here the judges also sat on the poor official, and added to his costs $37.05. " Higher! still higher! " cried the postmaster. The Court of Appeals replied : " All right be low, and §75.64 more to pay, Mr. F. M." (Full particulars of their other remarks are to be found in i Comst. 537.) '' Never say die," moaned Mr. Teal, and retained Mr. Seward to argue his case before that august tribunal, the Supreme Court of the United States; after the argument came the judg ment, which varied not from the utterances of the courts below, except in adding far more costs to the already not inconsiderable bill.2 Here, to the satisfaction of Miss Mary C. Felton, the regret of the lawyers on both sides, and the utter discomfiture of the Post master, the matter ended. This case has been cited before now to show that the legal maxim, " De Minnie mis(s) non curat lex," is not to be depended upon; and also to disprove the culinary notion that the higher a wild duck gets, the better it is. It is of course impossible to treat of this subject without getting into that which most young ladies strive for, — matrimony; or at

1 Dalrymple v. Hall, 16 Ch. Div. 715. - Dyer, 46, 88.

1 4 Stat. at Large, 105, in. - 19 Curt. 136; 12 How. 284.