1+4 
P A R K A N D CEiMET E R 1 + 
If possible, do not allow roads and walks 
to run through the center of a lawn or 
meadow, but keep them to one side and 
plant trees and shrubs irregularly along 
their sides in such manner as to prevent 
long stretches of either road or walk from 
being seen from any point of view. The 
entrance to a place should be as simple as 
possible and in keeping with the general 
lay of the ground. 
Bridges should be of a pleasing, simple 
design, harmonizing with their surround- 
ings. No bridges should be built unless 
there is a reason for it. Other structures, 
such as summer houses, arbour and boat 
houses should be ver\- carefully placed. If 
the design is simple and in harmony with 
its surroundings, the structure may add 
naturally to the beauty of the landscape, 
but' if not properly designed or placed 
without apparent reason for its position, 
it had better be left out, as it would only 
spoil what perhaps otherwise was a fine 
composition. 
Do not try to grow such plants as love 
shade and moisture on dry hillsides, as is 
often done, but select plants which are es- 
pecially adapted to the climate, soil and 
situation of your garden. Use American 
grown plants in your plantations if you 
want to succeed. Do not attempt to trans- 
plant large trees and shrubs from the 
woods into }our gardens, they will either 
not live or produce a stunted growth; 
small plants may be collected and trans- 
planted successfully. Make use of the 
many beautiful hardy plants introduced 
from other countries, especially those from 
Japan which are well adapted to our 
American climate. 
Problems of Park and Cemetery Law 
A department of Legal Advice and Discussion on problems that confront 
parks and cemeteries. You are invited to ask questions zvhich zAll be an- 
SK'cred by an attorney zvithout charge. A. L. H. Street, Consulting Attorney. 
Editor Asked and Answered : A mar- 
ried daughter is buried on the lot belong- 
ing to her father and mother, both of 
whom are deceased, and a headstone is 
placed at her grave by her huslmnd. Sev- 
eral years later there is a split between the 
husband and brothers of the deceased 
woman and the lettering on her headstone 
is changed to include her maiden name. 
This enrages the husband and he chisels 
this surname from the headstone. Now 
the question arises who shall repair the 
damaged piece of work? We would like 
to ask first who would be considered owner 
of the headstone, and if the huslxmd is 
so considered, what steps would be nec- 
essary to cause the removal of this stone 
so that a new one conforming to the ideas 
of the lot owners can be placed at the 
grave. — B. M., O. 
I am of the opinion that the legal rights 
in this matter are all on the husband's side, 
except as he may have rendered the head- 
stone unsightly by the manner in which 
he caused his deceased wife's maiden name 
to be obliterated. If he did this, it would 
seem that he is, at least, technically within 
the provisions of the Ohio statute which 
declares that “whoever, without authority, 
removes or maliciously injures a tomb, 
monument, grave stone, grave marker, or 
other marker erected to perpetuate the 
memory of * * * a person * * * 
shall be fined not less than $25 nor more 
than $5ii0 or imprisoned not more than 
thirty days, or both.” 
But since,, as will be seen below, the 
husband is legally entitled to control the 
headstone, nothing short of such mutila- 
tion of the stone as would show palpable 
disrespect for his dead wife would render 
him liable to prosecution. 
For the same reasons, I conclude that 
the brothers of the deceased woman have 
no right to remove the monument nor to 
make any changes in the inscription 
thereon, except as may be reasonably nec- 
essary to avoid marring the general ap- 
pearance of the lot. That they were at 
fault in precipitating the trouble is clear, 
for they had no right to meddle with the 
inscription which, apparently, was adopted 
liy their father and mother, while owners 
of the lot, as well as by the husband. 
This being true, it follows that the hus- 
l)and was entitled to restore the inscription 
to its old reading, but he was bound to 
do this in such manner as not to cause an 
unsightly mutilation of the headstone. The 
brothers have no right to complain of 
necessary marring of the monument in 
eliminating the name they added without 
authority. 
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the 
brothers are not entitled to remove the 
stone and substitute another, unless it can 
be shown that the husband wantonly 
marred the monument in removing his 
wife's maiden name. If he did do this, 
they should apply for an injunction to 
restrain him from interfering with re- 
mo\al of the marred headstone and sub- 
stitution of another. Without the protec- 
tion of such a court order, they, as well as 
a monument contractor doing the actual 
work of removal and substitution, would 
be running chances of prosecution under 
the Ohio statute above mentioned for re- 
moving a gravestone without authority. 
To support the view above expressed, I 
make reference to authoritative court de- 
cisions as follows : 
In the case of Durell vs. Hayward, 9 
Gray's Reports, 248, plaintiff sued defend- 
ant, her son-in-law, for damages for re- 
moving a gravestone which she erected 
over the grave of her daughter, defend- 
ant's wife, and which he removed to make 
room for another which he selected. 
The tablet erected by plaintiff read ; “In 
memory of Harriet M. Hayward, daughter 
of David and Almira Durell, born,” etc. 
Defendant had no intimation of plaintiff's 
intentions until the monument had been 
erected. When he removed it, he kept 
it subject to plaintiff’s order, but she re- 
fused to receive it and brought suit for 
damages. The trial judge awarded dam- 
ages in plaintiff's favor, holding ‘‘that the 
plaintiff had a right to erect the stone in 
memory of her daughter as she did; that 
the defendant, if there was anything upon 
the stone disagreeable to his feelings, could 
not remove the stone and carry it away 
without first giving notice to the plaintiff ; 
that the subsequent tender of the stone to 
the plaintiff was of no avail in the matter 
of damages.” But, on defendant's appeat 
to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- 
chusetts, in which commonwealth the case 
arose, the judgment was reversed, the 
higher court saying : 
"The plaintiff had no right to erect a 
stone at the grave of the defendant's wife 
without his knowledge or consent. The 
indisputable and paramount right, as well 
as duty, of a husband, to dispose of the 
body of his deceased wife by a decent 
sepulture in a suitable place, carries with 
it the right of placing over the spot of 
burial a proper monument or memorial in 
accordance with the well known and long 
estaldished usage of the community. The 
defendant had therefore a right to re- 
move the stone which the plaintiff had 
placed over the grave of his wife, in order 
to put in its stead the one procured by 
himself; and having taken it down with- 
out injury, and holding it in his posses- 
sion, ready to be delivered up to the plain- 
tiff on her demand therefor, he has done 
no act for which an action of trespass will 
lie.” 
In the case of McGann vs. McGann, 28 
Rhode Island Reports, 130, plaintiffs sued 
to compel defendant, widow of their 
brother, to remove from a monument 
which had been erected at the expense of 
his estate the names of defendant’s par- 
ents which she had caused to be inscribed 
on one side of the monument. In denying 
the right of plaintiffs to have the erasure 
made, the Rhode Island Supreme Court 
said : 
“If, then, the widow has such right of 
control [control of her husband’s burial], 
and being also administratrix, has obtained 
authority to expend the money of the es- 
tate for erecting a monument, she must, as 
a matter of course, have the right to erect 
such a monument as she chooses, within 
the limits of expenditure authorized, with 
such inscription thereon as she may deem 
