Newspaper Page Text
v £'f B>rokenMeartWort
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.
The Baroness
Ursula
Barbara
Von
Kalinowsky
Who Thinks
Her Broken
Heart Worth
$2,500,000.
Charles I. the Monkey for Whose
Death Its Owners Asked
$2,000,000 Damages.
T HE charming Baroness Ursula Bar
bara von Kalinowsky, of Vienna and
I^ew York, has set a new price
upon broken hearts. By her suit
against James Hurley, a wealthy St.
Louis contractor and clubman, she has
sent quotations on fractured loves rocket
ing skyward. Two and a half millions,
in vulgar bourgeois figures, $2,500,000,
is the value she places upon a heart no
longer whole.
By this claim she causes Miss Daisy
Markham, the London actress, to bow
her head in humiliation, for Miss Mark
ham asked and received only a paltry
quarter of a million for her broken heart.
The son 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 can its injuries
ibe standardized?
Merely commercial minds are also sore
ly puzzled by the fact that while the
English court placed so high a rating on a
maiden’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 six cents to his
parents for the killing of a college youth,
and another New York jury granted one
woman $25,000 for the loss of her leg. But
while a Judge across the Hudson River
refused to permit any damages to be paid
for the same sort of loss, saying that
the remarkable modern efficacy of cork
legs must be taken into consideration.
One baby’s life was rated at $7,500, an
other was deemed to be worth the ex
penses of burial, $150, and a third, ac
cording to the Judge, had absolutely no
pecuniary value.
Afi 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
so scarred by an aocident that she could
no longer wear a decollete 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 an eye or a leg bears it. Why is love
worth more than life? Why are an ac
tress’ dubious affections of more com
mercial value than a rich philanthropist’s
life? And why should a titled lady get
$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 Kalinowsky's logic of the
situation, a friend says, is this: It is
much better to be dead than to have been
robbed of your heart’s happiness, for with
out happiness life is less than nothing.
‘ The Baroness says this false and elu
sive Mr. Hurley is her first love. That
in itself is a possession beyond price. A
girl’s first love is better than a widow’s
second or a divorcee’s sixth. The Baron-
sss believes that she is allowing Mr.
Hurley to escape lightly with the pay
ment of two and a half paltry millions.
We believe that if this broken-hearted
noblewoman secured actual justice he
would forfeit all his fortune to her and
go to prison for the rest of his life, there
to meditate on the sin of fickleness. The
Baroness has a title and at Wiesbaden
high social position. These, too, have
their value. Is not the heart of a Baron
ess worth more than that of a shop
girl? Certainly.
“The price of hearts* depends
also upon the wealth of the person
who has stolen and undervalued
It. Mr. Hurley is very rich. You
comprehend ?’’
Yet the heart of Mrs. Susie Merrill, who
achieved unpleasant, notorietjr in the sec
ond of the Harry Thaw trial * for murder,
was the subject of a jest by a jury. Her
affections were rated at nothing, and she
received it. She was award sd nothing.
The price of hearts fluctuates as crazily
as do wild-cat, stocks in a panic on Wall
Street. It depends on hew great is the
aggregate of sentiment in the breasts of
the jurors and how keen is their vision of
beauty. Seekers for mometary salve for
their heart bruises kno.w this, else why
do they want to tell their own story in
court, why wear their most becoming
gown and hats, their most enhancing furs,
and why look straight at the jury every
minute of the trial?
Tlie human exhibit Is of enormous value
Highest Price Paid for a Broken
Heart $250,000
Lowest Price Paid for a Broken
Leart Nothing
Highest Price Paid fora Human Life $60,000
Lowest Price Paid for an Adult
Human Life $-0®
Highest Price Paid for a Leg $25,000
Next to Lowest Price for a Leg.... $1,000
Lowest Price for a Leg Nothing
Higheat 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
/
Miss Daisy Markham, the English Actress Who Got the
Record Verdict of $250,000 for Her Broken Heart.
in suits for damages. Six-year-old Rosalie
and Minna Gelier, chubby, round-eyed, pa
thetic in their black hats and coats, un
doubtedly won for their mother, the widow
of a street car conductor, the award of
$6,000 for their father’s life.
A jury in making awards is often guided
by the testimony of witnesses. In the
case of Bertha Westbrook Reid, the act
ress wife Hal Reid, the playwright, for
injuries sustained in an automobile col-
.lision of her automobile with that owned
by Albert Plaut, a theatrical manager
testified: “A man can have any kind of
a face and succeed. But an actress should
have a comely face. At least, it must not
be scarred or maimed.”
lict granting Mrs.
Charles Mao-
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
penses, $150.
The lowest value ever placed upon adult
life was what a jury nwarded Charles B.
Morris in a suit against the Metropolitan
Street Railway Company for the loss of
his sou, who was a college sophomore. The
jury valued the young man’s life at six
cents.
The New England judicial conscience
set to work upon the problem of award
ing what Miss Gertrude M. Garity’s hands
were worth. Miss Garity, 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 the
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 laffected the
hearts or consciences or influenced the
judgment of the jury to the extent that it
granted her ten 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 Light and 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 no pecuniary value,” the long battle
waged for little Ida Herblcb was success
ful in the courts. The child was five
years old when she fell from a trolley car
in Newark. The wheel ran over her arm.
The family sued the company in
the Circuit Court. That court estimated
Ida Herbich’s right 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 finally 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
stick, to be worth $50, and three fingers
severed from William H. Preston’s hand
in a dyeing and finishing plant $987.
When Justice Pound, in the Supreme
Court of New York, upheld the verdict
of a 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 Falls. 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 an accident for
which the New York City Railway was
responsible, received only $600 more than
the man who was 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.
'Hint is, that a life is less 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 Meyerowltz and his father together re
ceived $21,000. which they divided, because
of their respective loss through an acci
dent. 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
brakeman, received $20,000.
Better that a man be killed than that he
be rendered unfit for labor would seem to
lie the logic of the courts. But no logic
is apparent in its rating of hearts Inca
pacitated from loving again for the first
time.
Perhaps the pleading of Baroness Ursula
Barbara Kalinowsky’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 oould no longer ade
quately convey the illusion of joy, grief,
love, hate or any other emotions she
should be consoled by a goodly sum from
the purse of the owner of the Impulsive
automobile. Mr. Plaut was required to
pay her as compensation for the disobedi
ent eyelid and sundry facial scratches and
bruises $7,250.
Miss Edith Ferguson, once an actress,
nov; a milliner, was deeply humiliated
wh<-n an accident caused a long, dark,
irregular scar on the satin-like skin of her
shoulder.
“I shall always have to wear a high-
ueeked gown,” she lamented. “For the
hardship I want $2,000.” The suit Is
pending. It will depend upon the jury,
and 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 son had been killed by the injection
of impure virus in vaccination. TI ;e
cases, respectively of New York and Phila
delphia, are in striking contrast with the
judgment of Judge Gunmere, of New Jer
sey, who set aside a verdict for $5,000 for
the life of an Infant, saying that grief did
not count In the law and that a child’s
life had no actual commercial value.
Justice GHdersleeve set aside the ver-
Bernard Shaw and the Dramatic Critics.
M R. GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, who
with G. K. Chesterton are the two
most brilliant writers in England
to-day, has written another play. Mr.
Shaw has a fine contempt for dramatic
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 live 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 he showed that there are no
rules or measures or standards for weigh
ing a play. Every critic is guided, he
showed, by his own personal opinion, and
the more stupid or biased the individual,
the more worthless the criticism.
But the open-minded and presumable in
telligent dramatic critic of the Weekly
Bystander of London calls for fair play,
and in the current number of his paper
criticises his brother critics thus:
We drew attention last week to the con
stant "belittling” in the Press of Mr. Ber
nard Shaw, and the adoption toward him
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
test 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.”
“Here 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 (Mr. Shaw) intends to write many
more farces like “Great Catherine,” life
as a critic will not be tolerable
Not a trick of old-fashioned farce was left
unused. Mr. Shaw has even gone to
Copyright, 1912. hy the Star Company. Great Britain Rights Reserved.
Shakespeare for many of those tricks. . .
Frankly, “Great Catherine” is not good
Shaw.”—Daily News and Iyeader.
“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 laughter 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 amusing farce.’’—Pall Mall Gazette.
"Poor Fooling.”
“On the whole it is poor fooling: the
jester is in feeble mood and the only thing
that is really good is Mr. Shaw’s attempt
to treat one of history's scandalous char
acters In a manner that would not bring
color to the cheek of an Early Victorian
spinster.”—The Globe.
“High Jinks Long Drawn Out.”
“There was much laughter last night.
But on- the whole one came back to the
feeling that Mr. Shaw might have made
more out of that particular historical mi
lieu than a repetition of the Britannus joke
plus-high jinks rather long-drawn-out. The
Empress’s toe tickled the Captain’s ribs
a little too often, and to tickle our ribs
Mr. Shaw’s toe hardly suffices.”—The
Times.
“Very Little One.”
“It is a very little one, this new play
of Mr. Shaw’s. It lasts only a trifle more
than an hour, and that is more than long
enough.”—The Telegraph.
Does “Great Catherine” amuse the pub
lic (as per the Express. Westminster, Pal'i
Mall, and Times), or does It not (as per
Daily News, Morning Post, Globe, and
Telegraph)? These critics are paid, pre
sumably, to have their opinions, but surely
whether a play is laughable or not Is a
matter of fact, not of opinion, and ever
dramatic critics ought to have sense
enough to know that much.