River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1914-04-23
POPULAR TALKS ON Law
Continued from First Page
these stones,

Anu N0l0S0 ~ L. kAG@ 49, go
bones
1.-THE conclusion is that a court
will only exercise the power, if it
has such power, to order the body
of a deceased, in a murder prosecu-
ton, TO be disinterred, when to do
so is plainly necessary and essential
to The justice and fairness of the
trial and is a matter in the discre-
ton of the court"
While there can, generally speak
ing, be no rights in q dead body the
relatives of the deceased have a
recognized right to dispose of the
remains in a proper manner. A
husband or wife is generally recog-
nized as having the first right to
care for the remains and select a
place of burial. In the absence of
a husband or wife, the next of kin
has the right and also the duty to
provide for the burial. Where the
parties mo t closely connected with
the deceased, who have the right of
burial, select or agree to a place OF
burial, that is regarded as final,
and the law will lot allow a removal
except for some necessary or laud-
able purpose. Where the deceased
had clearly indicated a wish as to
burial, the courts will enforce it,
even though the relatives oppose.
Not only has the nearest surviv-
ing relative the right to arrange the
burial, but the duty also rests upon
him. For failure to fulfill this duty
he may be punished in q criminal
action.
Whether a man car be punished
for failing to provide a Christian
burial for his deceased infant was
the question raised in a recent case
A child of defendants having died,
he set about to bury it Taking
some pieces of rough board, h.
made a rude box to serve as a coffin
Although he had good lumber out
of which he could have made a bet
ter and more presentable box, he
said that he did not purpose using
his good lumber for this purpose.
This box was taken to a point in a
woods lot, and a grave was dug b
two neighborS about Two feet deep
Defendant brought the corpse from
the house in a small paper box, to
where the grave was being dug,
placed it upon the ground, and as
sisted in digging the grave. When
completed, the paper box with the
corpse in it was placed in the wood.
en- box and lowered. The grave
was then filled to a level with the
surrounding ground, defendant as
sisting in tramping the dirt as 1t
was being put back into the grave.
No services of any kind were held
at the grave. The court held that
it was the right of defendant to Sc
lect the place where his child should
be buried, and he vi lated no law
or duty in selecting a spot in the
woods, rather than in a cemetery.
There is no rule of law defining how
a corpse shall be dressed fer burial,
or the character of coffin or casket
in which it shall be enclosed, OF the
material out of which the box shall
be made, or the depth of the grave;
nor is it an offenSe not to notify
relatives and friends so that they
may be present at the interment,
for they have no legal right to be
present. There is no law imposing
upon those having in charge the
burial of the dead any duty to have
the interment accompanied with re-
ligiouS ceremony. The court said
in conclusions: 1T was no doubt
the extreme miserly and niggardly
disposition manifested by appellant
that aroused the indignation of his
neighbors, causing the Indictment,
and ultimately induced the jury to
assess the fine against him, which
he did. While by the facts in the
record, appellant is shown to be a
man utterly lacking in parental in
stin-ts, he has kept himself within
the pale of the law"