Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/134

 Unmarried Ladies. husband was duly united to a lady whom he believed to be quite a jeune ingenue. Un fortunately the certificate, in passing through some office, happened to be minutely exam ined by one of the clerks. The bride was charged with falsifying a public document, and condemned to spend, if not her honey moon, at least three of the first months of her married life, in prison. She had the courage to appeal from the sentence, and rause the case to be argued out before the court at Metz, which reversed the appeal of the inferior tribunal, and acquitted the lady on the ground that she did not intend to commit an illegal act, but had been actuated only by " female vanity." l Taylor, in his well-known work on " Evi dence," asserts that proneness to exaggerate is a feminine weakness; 2 he should have pointed out that it is not so when their own ages are in question. In Siam unmarried women are not allowed to give evidence at all.3 Young ladies will find a well-established example of this feminine weakness exhibited by a very much married woman in the first part of verse 29, John iv. From the records of the courts we learn that ladies sometimes exaggerate the value of their beauty. Mr. Forepaugh — a gentle man well known in the circus circles — advertised for the most beautiful woman in the world to ride as Lalla Rookh on an ele phant in his street parade. Miss Keyser responded to his advertisement. It was arranged that she should do the elephantine riding for gioo a week, and her board and travelling expenses; but the profannm ritlgus was to be told that a bonus of five figures was given her for thus exhibiting herself, and she was to be placarded as the Ten Thousand Dollar Beauty. The ten thousand dollar arrangement was but a myth, but its mythical nature was to be kept secret. The fair rider was thrown from the elephant, and was injured. Thereupon she sued Fore1 Irish Law Times, quoted in 21 Alb. L. Jour. 460. 2 Vol. i. sec. 54. 3 Kowring's Siam, p. 177.

111

paugh for damages, alleging that he had wrongfully furnished her with a beast which he knew to be vicious. The defendant con tended that the young lady had been twice before thrown by the same elephant, and that she was guilty of contributory negligence in getting on an animal that had proved fractious, and that this result was one of the risks incident to the employment. Miss Keyser denied this, and averred that the previous pitchings-off were from another pachyderm. The jury were told that al though it was the duty f the circus man to furnish a proper elephant, yet if the one in question had before dislodged the Beauty, she had no remedy for her injuries; also if this one had not been the sinner on the pre vious occasions, it was not negligence in the ' defendant to furnish an untried elephant, unless he knew it to be vicious. The jury gave the Beauty $500 as a salve, and this verdict was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Common Pleas. Old Dame Law is often a prude, and is most decidedly a busybody; it is hard to say where she may not interfere. Not long since the courts intervened to prevent some young ladies combing their hair! Ages ago, Philip II. of Spain forbade ladies wearing veils, and as bathing was a heathenish custom, washing in public or private baths was by that most Christian monarch prohi bited; but it was left for the judges of the Empire State to object to hair-dressing. The "Seven Sutherland Sisters " had locks of their own which outvied those of the much lamented Absalom. They were in the habit of combing these tresses of theirs in the window of a shop in New York; it was alleged that they did so аз an advertisement of a certain hair restorative. Crowds amounting almost to mobs, gathered in the street to witness this interesting toilet per formance. After a time Mr. Elias (not the original one of fiery chariot renown, but a neighboring shopkeeper) complained to the 1 March 24, 1883; 40 Leg. Int. 130; 27 Alb. L. Tourn. 261.