The Pascagoula democrat-star. (Pascagoula, Miss.) 1878-1920, 1886-07-16
GMeR Star
Rights OF a Mothcr-in-Law.


Boston Advertiser.
A recent decision Of the Supreme
Court of Vermont deals directly
With tile IDU,her-in law question
1t seems that after his mother-iu.
laws death 4 person, whose identity
it will be charitable 10 concea.
under the letter A sued her execu
tor for board and lodging furnished
TO her when she visited AS wife.
her daughter. These visits extend
ed Over a space OF FIVE years, were
made at tour different times, and
comprised in all twruIy-six aud
one-half weeks. The ieslimnny
showed that they were made snme
times without invitation audi soiuc
times at the invitation of AS wife,
1t did not appear that a himself
solicited her company. There was
no mutual understanding between
them rs to whether she vas a guest
or a "bearder' during the twenty
six and one bali weeks that she
spent under his roof. Therefore,
the court held that A was not en-
titled to compensation. AS under
standing on this point was perfectly
clear, for he Produced at the trial
al account book in which his wife
had entered, under his direction,
the date OF his mOther-In laws ar.
rival at his house on the occasion
OF her visits, and the date Of heI
departure. Ii came ont, however,
that A had never ventured to show
the book TO his mOther-in law, aud
that SIZE had no knowledge OF it,
but bad made her visits under the
impression that she was a welcome
guest.
Tue decision in this case was a
righteous one, and is well calculated
to preserve the family relations
from that mercenary and sordid
spirit which some times creeps into
them. And yet some %jnrits, notably
the author OF a well.knswn work Oh
tOrts, have criticised it as establish.
ing a dangerous precedent, which
is likely to saddle upon many along
suffering husband the support o!
his wife's relatives. If, they say, a
man is supposed, IN the eye of the
law, to boad and lodge his mother
in .hw-betweeu whom and himself
there is a well known and traditional
hostility-out OF pure affection,
why sbOald not the same principle
be extended 10 bis wlfe's brothers
and sisters, or even to her cousins !
But these fears are grouudless.
The basis OF the decision al 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 a%pprehend
that there would have been no
doubt as to her liability. In order
to he perfectly safe IA TAI need
only serve a written notice upon
lbs mother in Flaw when she first
crosses his threshold 10 the effect
that she will be charged so much
per day OF per 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 matter
that will have TO be determined By
the courts; for example, If another
in-law comes to the house by invi-
Iation of her daughter, can the
husband revoke the invitation upon
her arrivalf La such a case would
she be liable for a reasonable board
bill after notice to quit or pay from
her son in.law 7 In the event of
her declining to stay as a "boarder"
would not the s%On.in-law be respon
sible for her travelling expenses to
and from his place OF residence
In case she did stay, aud was al
terward sued for the board bill,
would she not have a claim in set
of for services in nursing tue chill
dren or a companion to himself and
Witef All these aud many other
like questions will tax the resources
of great judges.
Let US 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 beeu misrepresented with
iendish malignity. Not long ago
q mar went out aud hanged him
self. He was cut down just in time
to saw his lie. By whomi By
his mother. in-law. Aud what was
the comment of the brutal reporteri
Simply this: "She hadn't got
through with him 7"