Huntsville gazette., 1886-08-14
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Rights of a MOther-in-Law as Defined by 1
High Judicial Tribunal.

High Judicial Tribunal.
A recent decision of the Supreme
Court of Vermont deals directly with
the mother-in-law question 1t seems
that after his mother-in-law's death,
person whose identity it will be charit-
able to conceal under the letter A. sued
her executor for board. and lodging
furnished her when see visited AS wife,
her daughter. These visits extended
over space of five years, We're made
at four different times, and comprised in
all twenty-siX and one-half weeks.
The testimony showed that they were
m ade sometimes without invitation and
sometimes at the invitation of AS wife.
1t did not appear that A himself solic-
tied her company. There was no
mutual understanding between them as
to whether she was guest or
''boarder" during the twenty-six and
one-half weeks that she spent under his
roof Therefore the court held that A
was not entitled to compensation. AS
understanding on this point was per-
fectly clear, for he produced at the trial
an account-book in which his wife had
entered, under his direction, the date of
his mother-in-law arrival at his house
on the occasion of her visits, and the
date of her departure. 1t came out,
however, that A had never ventured to
show the book to his mother-in-law,
and that she had no knowledge of it,
but made her visits under the impress
sion that she was welcome guest.
ba ;<rh+
eous one, and is well calculated to pre-
serve the family relations from the mer-
cenary and sordid spirit which some
times creeps into them. And yet some
iurists. notably the author of the we'll
known work on torts, have criticised it
as establishing a dangerous precedent,
which is likely to saddle upon many a
long g-suffering husband the support of
his wife's relatives. If, they say, man
is supposed, in the eyes of the law, to
board and lodge his mother-in-law-be-
tween whom and himself there is
well-known and traditional hostility
but of pure affection, why should not
the same principle be extended to his
wife's brothers and sisters, or even to
his cousins? But these fears are ground
that the mother-in-law had not received
notice from the plaintiff that she or her
executor would be expected to pay a
reasonable board bill. Had this been
done we arprehend that there would
have been no doubt as to her liability.
In order to e perfectly safe man need
only serve written notice upon his
mother-in-law when she first crosses his
threshold to the effect that she will be
charged so much per day or week. She
will then have the choice of going or
staying, and IN either event there will
be no painful misunderstanding. And
yet there are points in this mat
ter that will have to be determined
by the courts; for example. if a mother
in-law comes to the house by invitation
of her daughter, can the husband re-
yoke the invitation on her arrival? in
such case would she be liable for a
reasonable board bill after notice to quit
or pay from her son-in-law? in the event
of her declining to stay as ''bOarder,'
would not the son-in-law be liable for
her travelling expenses to and from his
place of residencep in case she did stay
and was afterward sued for the board
bill, would she not have claim in set
off for services in nursing the children,
or as companion to himself and wife?
All these and many other like questions
will tax the resources of great Judges.
Let us hope that they will be settled
in catholic spirit, very different from
that in which these unfortunate relatives
have been treated in the public print.
Even their kindest and most generous
acts have been misrepresented with
fiendsh malignity. Not long ago a man
went out and hanged himself. He was
cut down in time to save his life. BY
whomp By his mother-in-law. And
what was the comment of the brutal re-
porter? Simply this: ''She had MT got
through aOith r'-Bostom advertiser.