The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-04-27
Continued from First Page.

those enforcing the duties and resron.
slbilities OF children. fathers and
mothers.
Nevertheless the parenta, relation
continues after marriage 40 far as the
rights conferred by continuing parental
affection and solicitude are concerned
No parent II bound at peril OF sue
cessful suit for damages to approve Of
MS child's marriage nor to open his
mouse and arms to an unwelcome reia-
ton at law. nor support or assist such
relation " he does not want him. nor
thereafter to close his own house to his
own child, nor to admit to he house
with that child the consort male or
female. chosen by that child.
IT has been sometimes thought. and
mas been urged here. that parents must
approve. or at any rate refrain from
disapprovtng, any son-in-law or daugh-
ter-in-law presented to them unless they
can assign and prove some reason salts
factory to the world tas represented in n
jury box) for refusing such approval, re-
ception. recognition and perhaps assist
ance
III the doctrine he not pressed quite
40 far. It has also been said that failure
TO approve and accept the candidate for
FAMILY honors without showing some
vice or wrongdoing in him or her il at
least evidence OF malice or hatred or
actionable tort az against the now
conner.
1T Is. however. my opinion that pa
rents are not bound to submit their &C.
ton as regards their own child to the
criticism either OF Judge or Of jury
men at the suit OF tho person whom
that child married.
zone who marries the child Of another
cannot complain that parental conduct
| toward that chld-if confined to the
child and not forcble or violent. or In
itself otherwise acknowledgements OF
! binders the enjoyment OF the child he
or she marries.
The effect Of the parents conduct
after marriage may be such as to render
life more attractive to their own of.
spring without the chosen consort. than
when living in the matrimonial relation
/ with him or her.
The effect Of that conduct may III
that son or daughter may repent mar.
riage as worldly or social mistake
and prefer the comforts OF the old HON,
to the hazards of new one.
All May Act unwisely.
But no liability attaches to parent,
80 acting unless It be afYirmativel,
shown by the disappointed marriag,
partner that tho parent defendants die
what they did. not from affection fo
their own child, however misplaced o
shortslghted such affection may be. bu
from hatred or malice toward the plain
. tilt and with the intent Of injuring saiC
plaintiff. In all this the parents ma,
act unwisely They may aggravate
situation bad enough already. but the.
are not responsible to the disappointe,
or excluded family addition. for lacl
| Of wisdom, or affection or even Of civil
ity.
Again, what parents do or refrai,
from doing TO or for their own children
is strongly presumed TO result from goo
motives. from affection for their ow,
flesh. and not from malice or hatre,
toward any one else and the burde
of proving the malice or hatred whic
underlies parental action. or the inner
ent illeRality of such action. lie
strongly upon him who asserts IT,
Applying these principles. not uni
versally received. but believed by me Z
he equally sound In law and socia
ethics. to the facts In this case. I fail {
see any ACT done by the defendan
Edward Bre!tung for which any motiv
other than affection for his daughtel
nor indeed did he do anything whateve
Injurious to the plaintiff.
1T was not even by procurement @
the defendants or either of them tina
In the beginning Kleist and his wife re
maincd apart. Such separation was h
the order or arrangement OF Juliet kleis
acquiesced In by the plaintiff. When IN
marriage was discovered there Is n
denial that Edward Breitung neve
forbade his daughter to leave him or z
with Kleist. He was not bound to Ell
courage her so TO do. or to render NJ
continued stay under his own roof ur
pleasant.
There Is but one piece Of evidenc
which has suggested to me the prophet
of laying the conduct OF Edwar
Breitung before this jury. Ada Gafns
says that Mr.. Breitung said to Mr.
Kleist that II she went with her hu,
band at once he (Breitung) would haN
Kelist locked UP for non-support.'
THE phrase Is a legal absurdity:
declared an impossibility but takin
the words at par they do not speak q
loudly az deeds, and after this heate
speech Onward Breitung did get wor
for Kleist, and there was in substanC
treaty made by all parties concerne
that the undoubtedly and naturally VI
welcome husband should 20 to work an
show what stun he had in him. II an
and do so, according to most OF "
evidence, for six months. In less tina
four months he had thrown up his wor
and begun this suit.
yet even after such abandonment I