Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-06-18
RIshs. Of a MoIher.In.Law.
From the Boston Advertiser.l

FROM the Boston AdYertlser.l
A recent decision OF the supreme court OF
Vermont deals directly with the mother. in.
law question. It seems that after his mother
in-law's death, q person, whose identity II
will be charitable to conceal under the letter
A, sued her executor for board and lodging
furnished to her when she visited AS wife,
her daughter. These visits extended over a
space of five years, were made at four differ
ent times, and comprised in all 2G4 weeks.
The testimony showed that they were made
sometimes without invitation, and sometimes
at the invitation of AS wife. 1t did not ap-
pear that A himself solicited her company.
There was no mutual understanding between
them rs to whether she was q guest or a
"bosrder" during the 26A weeks that she
spent under his roof. Therefore the court
held that A was not entitled 10 compensation.
AS understanding on this point was perfectly
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 q
arrival at his house on the occasion of her
visits and the date OF her departure. 1t
came out, however, that A had never ventur-
ed to show the book TO his mother in law, and
that she had no knowledge of it, but had
made her visits under the impression that she
was welcome guest.
The decision In this case was a righteous
one, and is we'll calculated to preserve the
family relations from that mercenary and sor-
did spirit which sometimes creeps into them,
An yet some jurists, notably the author of a
wel-known work on torts, have criticised il
az establishing dangerous precedent, which
is likely to saddle upon many a long-suhering
husband the support of his wifs's relatives.
II, they say, a man is supposed, in the eye of
the law, TO board and lodge his mother in
laxp hat xuho and hipna.lf 10 a
well known and traditional hostility out of
pure affection, why should not the same prin
ciple be extended to his wifes brothers and
sisteTH, or even to her cousins But these
fears are groundlesp, The basis of the deci.
sion was that the mother-in law had not re-
ceived notice from the plaintiff that she or her
executor would be expected to pay q reasona-
bic board bill Had this been done, we ap-
PR h-nd that there would have been no doubt
as to the liability. In order to be perfectly
safe, man need only serve a written notice
upon his mother-in in-law when she hrst crosses
his threshold, TO the effect that she will be
charged so much per day or per week. She
will then have the choice of going or staying,
aud in either event there will be no painful
misunderstanding. And yet there are points
in this matter that will have 10 be determined
by the courts. For example, if a mOtheT-in-
law comes to the house by invitation of her
daughter, can the husband revoke the invita-
tion upon 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 a
boarder would not the sOn.in-law be liable
for her travelling expenses 10 and from his
place of residence In case she did stay, and
was sued for the board bill, would she not
have a claim in set-off for services in nursing
the children or as a 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 a
catholic spirit, very different from that in
which these unfortunate relatives have been
treated in the public prints. Even their kind.
est and most generous acts have been miarep-
resented with hendish malignity. Not long
ago a man went out and hanged himself. He
was cut down just in time to save his life. BY
whom2 BY his mother in. law. Aud what
was the comment of the brutal reporter
Simply this "She hadn't got through with
him I"