Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-07-30
THE MOTHEIS-IN-IAW,
Her Rights and Privileges In the Eye of
the Law.
Boston Advertiser !

A recent decision of the supreme cour
of Vermont deals directly with the moth
er-in-law question. 1t seems that afte1
his mOther-in-law' death, a person, whose
identity 1t will be charitable to concea
under the letter a, sued her executor fol
board and lodging furnished to her wher
she visited AS wife, her daughter. These
visits extended over space of five years
were made at four different times, anG
comprised in all 2Gi. weeks The ties
tlmony showed that they were made
sometimes without invitation and some.
times at the invitation of AS wife 1t did
not appear that a himself solicited her
company. There was no mutual under
standing between them as to whether she
was guest or \ "boarder" during the &c
ana one-half weeks that she spent under
his root Therefore the court held that A
was not entitled to compensation. AS
understanding on this point was perfectly
clear, for he produced at the trial an ac-
count DOCK in which his wife had entered
under his direction, the date of his moth
erin law 5 arrival at his house on the oc-
caslon OF her visits and the date of her de
parture. Ii came out, however that A
hau never Ventured to show the book Ia
ms mother-in-law, and that she had no
knowledge of it, but had made her visits
under the impression that she was a vel
come guest.
The decision in this case was RIGHT
eous one. and is well calculated to.pre.
serve the family relations from that Inpr-
cenary and sordid spirit which sometimes
creepS into them. And yet some iurists.
notably the author of a well known work
on torts, have criticised it as establishing
IL /. l..
saddle upon many a long suffering hus.
band the support of his wfe's relatives.
III, they say, a man is supposed, in the eve
or the law, to board and lodge his mother
ln-laW between whom and himself there
Is well known and traditional hostility
Out OF pure affection, why should not
the same principle be extended to his
wife's brothers and sisters, or even To her
cousins But these fears are groundless
Inc basis of the decision was that the
motherln-laW had not received notice
from the plaintiff that she or her eXecu-
tor would be expected to pay Il reasonable
BOARD Dill. Had this been done we apDre-
heuu that there would have been no doubt
as TO her liability, In order to be per-
fectly safe man need only serve a writ
ten 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 per week. She will then have the choice
OF gong or staying, and IN either event
there Will be no painful misunderstood
ing. 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 revoke the in
vltatlon upon her arrival in such case
would she be liable for Il reasonable board
Dill after notice TO quit or pay from her
son-ln-laW in the event of her declining
TO stay as "bOarder" would not the SON
ln-law he liable for her ravellingeXpenses
to and from his place of residence : In
case she did stay and was afterward sued
for the board bill, would she not have n
claim in set off for services in nursing the
children, or AZ companion to himself and
Wlte All these and many other like
questions will tax the resources of great
JUICES.
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 prints. Even
their klndest and most generous acts have
been mlsrepresented with fiendish malg-
hlty Not long ago a man went out and
hanged himself. He was cut down lust i'm
time to save his life, BY whom Bv his
mother ln-law. And what was the com
ment of the brutal reporter Simply
this:
"She hddHt got Through lUith MIN