Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1886-07-30
THE MOTHER-lN-LAW.

lh"Sloh AuNcrt1~Cr.I
y recent decision of the .unrnno
court of Vermont deals directly with fine
mother-in-law question. II seems that
AFTER ms mother-in-lav's death. person.
whose identity it will be charitable to
conceal under the letter 4. sued her ev-
ecutor for board and lodging furnished
to her when she visited A.. wife. her
"au@Il'or' These visits extended over a
space OF five years, were made at four
Inherent times, and comprised i'm all 2G ID
weeks. The testimony showed that they
were made sometimes without invitation
anu sometimes at the invitation of As
Wile' II did not appear that 4 himself
SoIlcited her company. There was no
mutual understanding between Them rs
!" whether she was a guest or "A ''boartler"
uurlhS the 70 and Omc-half weeks that
she spent under his roof. Therefore tba
court held that \ was NOT entitled to
compensation. A. understanding an
'hiS point was perfectly clear. for he
produced at the trial an account book in
winch his wife had entered. under his
direction. the date of his mother-iu-la,v,s
arrival at his house on the occasion of
her visits and the date of her departure.
1t came out. however, that 4 had never
Nehtured 10 show the book to his mother
IN law, and that She had no knovledgn
OF IT, but had made her visits Under the
IL. 1
guest.
Inc decision in this case wa, RIGHT
eouN one, and i, well calculated 70 nre-
serve the family relation. from th.t
mercenary and sordid spirit which some
tunes creepS in to them. And vet some
lurlSts' notably the author of a we'll
known work on tort,. have criticised if
IL establishing Il dangerous precedent
winch l. likely to saddle upon many =
lohg-suiiering husband the support of
MS Wife'> relatives. If. they say. a man
l. supposed, in the eye of the law. to
p""ru ana lodge his mOther-ln-aw-be-
tween whom and himself there i, A we'll
known and traditional huStilitv-o,lt of
pure affection. why should not the same
principle be extended to his wife's
pIouil'TN ana sisters. or even to her
cousins: But these fears are grouudle,..
me basis of the decision wa, thar the
lhotllcr-in-law had nor received notice
from the paintih thar She or her oxocu-
'"r would be expected to pay Il rea,oua-
Ole board bill Had this been done we
apprehcnd that there would have been mo-
doubt a. to her liability. I'm order to he
perfectly safe man need only serve a
written notice upon hi> muthrr-in-Lw
Wheh she first CROSSES hi, threshold. 70
the effect that She will bee charged so
much per day ar per week. She will
'h'h nave the choice of going or ,taving.
ana IN either event there will be no pain
1uI misunderstanding And VET there
are points in this matter that will havcto
he determined by the courts; for exam
PIE. II nothrr-in-laW comes to the house
10y invitation of her daughter. can the
husband revoke the invitation upon her
arrival: in such Il case would she be lin
ole Tor reasonable board bill after no.
tlcc to quit or pay from her Son-in-law?
IN the event of her declining to stay AS n
"boardcr. would not the Son-in-law be
liable for her travelling expenses to and
from his place of residence: In case She
did stay and was afterward sued for the
board bill. would She not have claim i'm
set of for services in nursing the child
rem or as companion to himself and
wife: All these and many other like
questions will tax the resources of great
Judges.
Let u hope that they will be settled in
"A catholic spirit. very different from that
in which these unfortunate relatives have
been treated in the public prints. Even
their kindest and most generous acts
have been miSrepreSented with tiendi>h
Not long ago a man went
out and hanged himself. He was cut
down Just in time to save his life. By
whom; BY his mother-n-aw. And
what was the comment of the brutal re-
porter: Simply this;
"Nhc h0dRt got HroUgh ,rjH bjmr'