Of Love, Kisses & Nudism

Abstract as it may seem to many critics, the law is ever refreshed by weird conflicts that reflect the earthy tragicomedies of human life:

> Greta Starks was 24 when she acquired a married admirer of 55 who became virtually her sole means of support. For five years, Greta's great and good friend in Detroit showered her with furs, furniture, a new car, a weekly allowance and cash enough to buy a house. Figuring that it was all a tax-free gift, Greta filed no income tax returns through 1958. The ever-vigilant Internal Revenue Service recently totted up Greta's take at $64,978.41, called it taxable income "for services rendered," and ordered her to pay $26,069.96. Happily for all single girls in the same position, Judge John E. Mulroney of the U.S. Tax Court has just upheld Greta in a decision that he doggedly insists had nothing to do with the "propriety" of the situation. The judge simply believed Greta's testimony that "she never considered the money and property turned over to her by this man as earnings," but thought of them as the fruit of "a very close personal relationship" based on "love and affection." Ruled the judge: Greta "received gifts of money and property, and no taxable income."

> "The kiss was fully on the mouth," admitted the plaintiff, Mary Nofsinger, 25. "And it endured up to the time of the accident?" asked her ex-boyfriend's lawyer. A: "Yes." Q: "This wasn't the first time you kissed, was it?" A: "No." But it was the last time with Airman Gary C. Hodges. As she told it, Mary had amiably gone along for a ride when, without warning, he kissed her. Smack! --the car wound up in a canal. Mary sued him for her assorted injuries, and the jury awarded her $7,500. Dismayed, Hodges took his kissing case to Florida's Third District Court of Appeal on the ground that Mary had willingly kissed back with a "reckless disregard for her safety" that made her guilty of contributory negligence and him immune to paying damages. Hodges lost on a technical knockout. When defendants appeal jury verdicts, ruled the court, "all testimony and proper inferences therefrom are required to be construed most favorably to the plaintiff."

> When police arrived, Kentucky Farmers Clarence and Benjamin Roe were holding family religious services in their unfenced backyard. Unfortunately, the assembled Roes of all ages and sexes were not wearing clothes. The Greenup Circuit Court fined Clarence and Ben jamin $1,000 apiece for violating Kentucky's Nudist Society Act, which required all nudist colonies to pay an annual license fee of $1,000, register all members, and segregate the premises with a solid masonry wall 20 ft. high. Unreasonable and unconstitutional, ruled Kentucky's highest court as it voided the Roes' convictions and stripped the nudist law from the books. Calling the wall "prohibitive" and the fee excessive, the court scoffed at the law's definition of a nudist as anyone found naked before "persons of the opposite sex, not his husband or wife, at their solicitation or with their consent, for religious or health purposes." Construed literally, ruled the court, the law would penalize even "a female patient who undergoes an examination by a male physician."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.