diana), " but certainly will if the doctrine is adhered to "; and there is a good deal of reason in its further statement, that " The ' Texas doctrine' has been fa vorably referred to in many of the more recent text books, but the bench and bar will understand of how little weight as authority most of these books are, writ ten, as they very frequently are, by hired professional bookmakers of no special legal ability, and who usu ally are inclined to take up with the latest legal nov elty for the same reasons that newspaper men are anxious for the latest news." Some of these courts seek to justify their extravagance by applauding the "elasticity " of the common law, apparently forgetful that the law may be stretched until it becomes " too thin." In an opinion of nine lines, the Ohio Supreme Court admirably and conclusively sums up the matter in question as follows: " Mere mental pain and anx iety are too vague for legal redress, where no injury is done to person, health or reputation." The wisdom of the doctrine is well illustrated by the ex perience of the courts that have departed from it."
The Measure of Damages. — There is some good reading in the current digests on the question whether damages are or are not excessive. The de gree of sensibility of different courts is curiously con trasted in such dry notes. Taking up the last digest our eyes fall at random on the holding, in Illinois, that a verdict for $3,500 for negligently causing the death of a girl four years old is excessive; while in the next paragraph the same court is reported as holding that a verdict of $3,000 for the death of a five-year-old boy is not excessive. Sex. one year, and $500 make this serious difference. The emo tional Texas court, which originated the practice of awarding damages for mere mental suffering on ac count of breach of contract, is recorded as deciding that a verdict for $700 for compelling a lady passen ger with two small children to go aboard a dirty and filthy car in which there were men chewing, smoking and drinking, using indecent language, and singing indecent songs, and firing pistols, is not excessive
where she was frightened, made sick, and suffered physical and mental pain in consequence. Really it would seem worth while to be a woman to live in Texas. But the next paragraph casts some doubt on this. We read : " Recovery cannot be had by a hus band for bodily or mental pain suffered by his wife through the negligence of a ticket agent in selling him tickets for her to the wrong station, where there is no direct proof thereof, and the circumstances are not such that it can be inferred that she suffered the same."' Suppose she did " suffer the same "; is the husband allowed to recover for that? We had sup posed that his recovery in such cases was pretty gen erally limited in this country to his loss of her services and society, and that she had a right to the balm for her own pains. Perhaps Texas is not so gallant as we had supposed. The idea of allowing a husband damages for his wife"s mental suffering is truly gro tesque. It ought not to exist except in those rare instances where husband and wife are "of one mind." Another Texas case of immeasurable damages is Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Jones, 1 Am. Neg. Cases, Cur. Series, 531. Here the station master's wife, apparently an over-virtuous woman, threw into the street the bundles of another woman who had come to take passage, and accused her of having undressed before men and stolen a pair of scissors from her. This was in the presence of the husband, who made no attempt to stay the flow of his wife's language, probably knowing it would be impracticable. For this, and the consequent mental suffering and sick ness and bodily pain, a jury assessed the corporation in the sum of $450. No comment was made on the amount of the damages, and the court got over the point that there was no proof of bodily injury by the fact that the charge of the judge was conditioned on the finding of it by the jury. Such a verdict is simply ridiculous, and it the suit had been between the two women no such amount would have been awarded or tolerated. It is apparent that Texas is the State to which all extremely sensitive persons should emigrate.
