Newspaper Page Text
$2,000,000 Damage*.
HE charming Baroness Ursula Bar
bara von Kalinowsky, of Vienna and
New York, has set a now price
Upon broken hearts. By her eult
against James Hurley, a wealthy St
latuls contractor anti clubman, she has
tent quotations on (racturod loves rocket-
Ijig gl^yvard. Two and a half millions,
In vulgar bourgeois figures, J2.500.000,
is the value she places upon a heart no
longer whole.
By this claim she causes Miss Daisy
Markham, the I.ondon actress, to bow
her head In humiliation, for Miss Mark
ham asked and received only a paltry
quarter of a million for bor broken heart.
The sen of an earl gave It to her, too.
From which, although it Is the record
verdict, we must conclude that Miss
Markham's bruised affections are, for
some reason not readily apparent, worth
but one-tenth those of the German Baron
ess. And the heart was given to the
wealthy Marquis of Northampton, too.
The question arises: What is a broken
heart really worth? How ran Its Injuries
be standardized?
Merely commercial minds are also sore
ly puzzled by the fact that while the
English court placed so high n rating on a
gnaiden's heart .and while a German noble
woman raises the ante ten times, the
largest equivalent granted for a whole
human life, which certainly includes a
completely disabled heart, was that
awarded Mrs. Katrina Trask for the
death of her husband, the late multi
millionaire, Spencer Trask. $60,000.
This verdict did not, however, deter
the owners of the trained monkey.
Charles I„ from asking $200,000 for their
loss by his death.
Again, a Jury gave si* cents to his
parents for the killing of a college youth,
and another New York Jury grantod ono
woman $25,000 for tho loss of her leg. But
while a Judge across the Hudson Rlvor
refuaeu to permit any damage; to he paid
for the same sort of loss, saying that
the remarkable modern efricacy of cork
legs must be taken Into conslderktion.
One baby's life was rated at $7,500, an
other was deemed to h* worth the ex
panses of burial, $150, and a third, ac
cording to me Judge, had abauidUij no
pecuniary value.
An actress has received $7,250 for an
injury to her eye that robbed her of easy
facial expression, and a milliner was re
fused $2,000 although her Shoulder was
■O scarred by au accident that she could
no longer wear a decollote gown. Her
shoulders, by the way, were unusually
beautiful.
This confusion of ratings suggests that
we need a standardization of human
values, Including broken hearts, and raises
the question why a heart Is accounted of
more worth than a leg. why spurned af
fections bull the market, while the loss
of on oye or a leg hears It. Why is love
worth more than life? Why are an sc-
, tress' dubious affections of more com-
I merclal value than a rich phiisniutuplst's
' Hfe? And why should a titled lady gel
$2,500,000 for her fractured heart while a
woman who lost both arms and both legs
In a railroad accident received only $50,-
000. The Baroness' heart will be good
hereafter for all practical purposes, while
the other woman’s members were not.
The Baroness Kallnowsky'a logic of the
situation, a friend says. Is this: It is
much better to be dead than to hive been
robbed of your heart's happiness, for with
out happiness life Is less than nothing.
■'The Baroness oa.vs this false and elu
sive Mr. Hurley is her first love. Thai
In Itself is s possession beyond price. A
girl’s flrst love Is better than a widow's
second or a divorcee's sixth. The Baron
ess beTffiVes that she is allowing Mr.
Hurley to escape lightly with the pay
ment of two and a half paltry millions.
We believe that if tbls broken-hearted
noblowoman secured acrual Justice he
vroiild forfeit all his fortune to her and
go to prison for the rest of his life, there
fo meditate on the sin of fickleness. The
Baroness ha* a title and at Wiesbaden
■ - social position. These, too. have
value. Is not the heart of a Baron-
[The Baroness
Ursula
Barbara
Von
Kalinowsky
Who Thinks
Her Broken
Heart Worth
$2,500,000.
eg* worth more than that of a shop
girl? Certainly.
“Tho price of hearts depends
also upon the wealth of the person
who has stolen and undervalued
it. Mr. Hurley la very rich. You
comprehend?”
Yet the heart of Mr*. Susie Merrill, who
achieved unpleasant notoriety In the sec
ond of the Harry Thaw trials for murder,
was the subject of a jest by n Jury. Her
affections were rated at nothing, and she
received It. She was awarded nothing.
The price of hearts fluctuates ns crazily
as do wlld-cat stocks In a panic on Wall
Street. It depends on how great is the
aggregate of sentiment In tho breasts of
thu Jurors and how keen Is their vision ol
beauty. Seekers for monetary salve for
their heart bruises know this, else why
do they want to tell their own story In
court, why wear their most becoming
gown and hats, their most enhnneing furs,
and why look straight at the Jury every
minute of the trial?
The human exhibit is of enormous value
Miss Daisy Markham, the English Actress Who Got the
Record Verdict of $250,000 for Her Broken Heart
t» suits for damages, olx-year-old Rosalie
tod Minna Geller, chubby, round-eyed, pa
thetic in their black hats and coats, un
doubtedly won for their mother, the widow
of a street car conductor, tho award of
$1,000 for their father's life.
A Jury lu making a warun »» ofteu guided
by the testimony of witnesses. In the
esse of Bertha Westbrook Held, the act
ress wife of Hal Reid, the playwright, for
iojuries sustained in an automobile col
lision of her automobile with that owned
by Albert Plant, a theatrical manager
testified: "A man can have any kind of
• face and succeed. But nn actress should
gave a comely face. At least, It must not
bt scarred or maimed.”
lict granting Mrs.
Charles Mac-
Donald $12,000
for the loss of
her twelve-year-
son and told her
she would get
nothing unless
she consented to
receive $7,500.
One baby, by the "courtesy of the court,”
was conceded to be worth his burial ex-'
penscs, $150.
The lowest value ever placed upon adult
life was what a Jury awarded Charles B.
Morris In a suit against the Metropolitan
Street Hallway Company for tho loss of
his son. who was a college sophomore. The
Jury valued the young man’s life at six
cents.
The New England Judicial conscience
set to work ti|M>n the problem of award
ing what Miss Gertrude M. Garity’s hand*
were worth. Miss Garlty. a pretty young
stenographer, sued for the loss of both of
them. Grasping a chair with one hand, she
had turned on an electric lamp with thff'..
other. Her hands were so severely burned
that both were amputated. The sight of
the young woman shorn of the power to
earn--her livelihood either affected the
hearts or cou?«eietn;e* or Influenced the
Judgment of the Jury to the extent that it
grantod her tefi thousand dollars less than
the value placed upon Spencer Trask’s life.
For the loss of her hands and for the suf
ferings Inflicted by the company's negli
gence the Connecticut J.lght ami Power
Company and the Southern New England
Telephone Company were forced to pay
her $50,000.
Notwithstanding the attitude of Jersey
Justice, “grief does not count and a child
has tio pecuniary value,” W»e long bnttfe
waged for little Ida Herblch was success
ful 111 tile courts. The child w$»» five
years old when she fell from a trolley car
In Newark. The wheel run over her arm.
The family sued the company in
the Circuit Court. Tlmt court estimated
Ida Herbich's .*iglit arm at $10,000. The
railway, declaring the price was excessive,
carried the matter to the Supreme Court,
which set aside the verdict. The counsel
for the child's parents appealed and the
Court of Errors and Appeals fiually In
dorsed the action of the Circuit Court.
By the time she received the $10,000 Ida
had grown to be almost a young woman,
as Is evidenced by her reply when she was
asked what she would do with the money:
“Why, I’m going to get married with
that.”
The same judge on the same day ad
judged Elsie Super’s right eye, which had
been accidentally knocked out by a broom-
stiik. to be worth $50, and three fingers
severed from William H. iimiui.'s hum*
In n dyeing and finishing plant $987.
When Justice Pound, in the Supreme
Court of "New York, upheld the verdict
of n lower court In the case of Stephen
Roberts vs the Niagara Falls Hydraulic
Power and Manufacturing Company a
value was placed upon a kidney for the
first time in the courts of the State. Rob
erts was hurt in the collapse of a. scaf
fold on the bank of the Niagara River
near the Fulls. A kidney was crushed
and had to be removed. Roberts asked
$50,000 for the missing kidney. The court
beared the market in missing kidneys to
$14,000.
Yet a man who lost his reason through
Injuries received through nn accident for
which the New York City Railway was
responsible, received only $600 more than
the man who wa* minus a kidney. Kid
neys, therefore, In the eyes of the court
crowd minds in value.
Upon two points alone the courts, de
spite their vagaries, seem fairly to agree.
That Is, that a life Is loss precious than
a limb. And that a broken heart is worth
more than anything else that’s broken.
One'day in the New York courts recently
Mrs. Mary Hogan, a widow, was offered
$7,000 In lieu of her husband’s life. Mor
ris Meyerowltx and his father together re-
reived *ji,C"u”J, .WiiiCit issc/ uiViiicu,
of their respective loss through an
dei.t. Young Meyerowitz had lost his leg
and his father had lost his services. They
were valued respectively at $11,000 and
$10,000. Henry Godfrey, who lost his arm
while in the discharge of his duty as a
brakenmn, received $20,000.
Better that ft man b$» killed than that In*
be rendered unlit for labor would seem t"
be the logic of the courts, nut no loi;i<
is apparent in it* rating of hearts inca
pacitated from loving again for the first
time.
Perhaps the pleading of Baroness Ursula
Barbara Kalinovsky's attorney will clear
the fog Induced by the courts. Meanwhile
would It not be well to attempt a stand
ardization of values of the parts of the
human body, including the heart?
The Jury agreed with Mrs. Reid that
because one eyelid was so stiffened from
the Injury that she could no longer ade
quately convey the illusion of joy. grief,
love, hater* or any other emotions she
Should be ccnsoled by a goodly sura from
the purse of the owner of the impulsive
Automobile. Mr. Plant was required to
fty her as compensation for the disobedi
ent eyelid and sundry facial scratches and
bruise* $7,250.
Miss Edith Ferguson, once an actress.
BOW a milliner, was deeply humiliated
when an accident caused a long. dark.
Irregular scar on the s&tin-like skin of her
ehoulder.
”1 shall always have to wear a high-
Becked gown,*’ she lamented. “For the
hardship I wunt $2,000." The suit is
pending. It will depend upon the Jury,
ind In part upon the Judge.
A Jury secured from the Metropolitan
Street Railway Co. $7,500 for the life of a
Child destroyed by a car. Mrs. Bridget
Nugent received $10,000 because her In
fant can had been killed by the injection
Of impure virus In vaccination. These
cases, respectively of New York and Phila
delphia, are In striking contrast with the
judgment of Judge Gunmere, of New Jer-
Wf, who set aside a verdict for $5,000 for
the life of an infant, saying that grief did
K t count In ‘he law and that a child’s
9 bad no accuai commercial value,
lattice Gildersleevo set aside the ver-
Bernard Shaw and the Dramatic Critics.
M R. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, who and In the current number of his paper
with G. K. Chesterton are the two criticises his brother critics thus:
most brilliant writers In England We drew attention last week to the con-
to-day, has written another play. Mr. fttant “belittling” In the Press of Mr. Ber-
Shaw has a fine contempt for dramatic nard Shaw, and the adoption toward him
critics, who are mostly men he thinks who
couldn't possibly write an acceptable play
and over and over again have demonstrated
the fact that they don’t recognize the ele
ments of a successful play when they
go to a “first night.’ They abuse plays
that turn out to be tremendous popular
successes and they approve and applaud
plays which Uve scarcely a week. The ex
posure of this low order of Intelligence of
the critics has Incensed the British critics.
In fact, Mr. Shaw once took the trouble
to write a play making fun of the critics.
In this play be showed that there are no
rules or measures or standards for weigh-
ing a play. Every critic ts guided, he
showed, by his own personal opinion, and
the more stupid or biased the individual,
the more worthless the criticism.
But the op^o-minded and presumable in
telligent dramatic critic of the Weekly
Bystander of London calls for fair play,
by the critics of an attitude of prejudice.
Last week saw the production of his
“Great Catherine” at the Vaudeville. I am
not. myself, criticising the play this week,
but shall look in at leisure, and probably
do so next. Meanwhile, it Is Interesting to
lest the theory of “prejudice” by a glance
at the criticisms that have appeared. What
kind of play is it that draws forth such
diametrically contradictory notices as
those I quote below?
“Most Hilarious."
“Hero we find Bernard Shaw In his most
hilarious infectious, irresponsible, and
farcical mood—scoffing without offence,
being obvious without afterthought, a rol
licking writer of farce.”—Dally Express.
“Not Good Shaw.”
“If he x (Mr. Shaw) Intends to write many
more farces like “Great Catherine," life
as a critic will not bo tolerable
Not a trick of old-fushioned farce was left
unused. Mr. Shaw has even gone to
Copyright, 1912. Py ilU Star Company. Great Britain Rights Reserved.
Shakespeare for many of those tricks. . .
Frankly. “Great Catherine” Is not good
Shaw.”—Daily News and Leader.
“Roars of Laughter."
“A very clever, funny play with really
shrewd strokes of character and sharp
hits. Truly amusing play. Caused roars
of laughter."—Westminster Gazette.
“The Ayes Had It."
“What made some shriek with laughter
left others unmoved. The piece never once
got the whole audience at its back, and
the laughtor undoubtedly fell off during
the last two scenes. The reception was
favorable—that is to say the ’Ayes’ had
It.”—Morning Post.
“Most Amusing Farce."
“The bill at the Vaudeville Theatre was
bounteously enriched last night by the
addition of a farce in four scenes by Mr.
Bernard Shaw. . . . Mr. Shaw, writing
at the top of his form, has composed a
most arousing farce.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
“Poor Fooling."
“On the whole it Is poor fooling: the
Jester is la feeble mood and the only thing
that U really good is Mr. Shaw’s attempt
to treat one of history’s scandalous char-
arters in a manner that would nr>t bring
color to the cheek of an Early Victorian
spinster.”—The Globe.
“High Jinks Long Drswn Out."
“There was much laughter last night
But on the whole one came back to the
feeling thpt.Mr. Shaw might have made
more out of that particular historical mi
lieu than a repetition of the Brltannus joke
plus-high Jinks rather long-drawn-out. The
Empress's toe tickled tho Captain's ribs
a little too often, and to tickle our ribs
Mr. Shaw’s toe . hardly suffices.”—Tbs
Times.
“Very Little One."
“It is a very little one, this new p'af
of Mr. Shaw’s. It lasts only a trifle mors
than an hour, and that Is more than long
enough.”—The Telegraph.
Does “Great Catherine” amuse the P u “;
lie (as per the Express, Westminster, Tall
Mali, and Times), or does it not (as per
Dally News, Morning Post, Globe, and
Telegraph)? These critics are paid, pre
sumably, to bar# their opinions, but lureir
whether a glay Js laughable or not I 1 ’ a
matter of fact, not of opinion, and even
dramatic critics ought to have sense
enough to know that much.
/— 1
Highest Price Paid for a Broken
Heart $250,000
Lowest Price Paid for a Broken
Heart Nothing
Highest Price Paid fora Human Life $60,000
Lowest Price Paid for an Adult
Human Life • • •• VO^
Highest Price Paid for a Leg $25,000
Next to Lowest Price for a Leg. -. $1,000
Lowest Price for a Leg Nothing
Highest Price for Eyes $20,000
Lowest Price for Eyes $50
For Baby’s Life $10,000
For Baby’s Life No Pecuniary Value
For Lose of Monkey—Asked, $200,-
000; Received $25,000
For Loss of Human Kidney—Re
ceived • $14,000
V ^
What
The Baroness Ursula Demands
$2,500,000 from a St. Louis
Millionaire—The Record Price
Paid Is $250,000 and the
Record Price for a Whole Life
Only $60,000.