park and cemetery. 
193 
variety of growth. Roadways curve and intersect, pass- 
ing beneath overhanging branches or leading out into 
the open. The flowering plants and shrubs of Wood- 
mere are shown in countless variety and are of great- 
beauty. 
Here and there trees meet overhead, the branches grow- 
ing low, afford vistas of distant landscapes, while but a 
few yards away, the view is more open though of equal 
beauty. 
The roadways conform with the natural lay of the 
land; many follow old Indian trails. There are nooks 
of Woodmere where the natural growth is made to adorn 
a wider area. Upwards of an hundred acres of great 
natural beauty have recently been added to Woodmere, 
and constant efforts are made to add to the variety of 
shrubbery and the floral growths. The entire enclosure 
lends itself to every effort to maintain or add to natural 
conditions. 
The Woodmere Chapel and Crematorium is one of the 
finest structures of its kind. Careful research was made, 
and famous chapels of this country and England were 
inspected before plans were drawn for the Woodmere 
Chapel and Crematorium. The beauty and simplicity of 
the architecture and the natural beauty of environment 
have already made their appeal. The crematorium, the 
result of careful designing and construction by com- 
petent electrical engineers, is in equipment unsurpassed 
by any like structure in the world. 
The officers of the Woodmere Cemetery Association 
are: President, E. Y. Swift; vice-president, Wm. H. 
Murphy; treasurer, Rufus G. Lathrop; secretary and su- 
perintendent, M. H. Winters. 
LEGAL DECISION ON RIGHT TO CREMATE BODY 
In the case of Elizabeth Evans v. 
T. Evans and others, decided by 
Judge Dickson in the Common Pleas 
Court of Hamilton County, Ohio, 
May 22, 1912, it was held that it is 
the duty of a widow, as the heir or 
next-of-kin of her deceased husband 
to dispose of his body in a reasonable 
and sanitary manner, and where in 
conformity with his expressed desire 
she elects to cremate his body, injunc- 
tion will not lie against that method 
of disposal, where based only on sen- 
timental objections to cremation on 
the part of other near relatives. The 
court proceedings are so novel and 
important in their effect upon future 
controversies of this kind, and dis- 
pose so clearly the differences of 
opinion existing as to the proper dis- 
position of the remains of the dead, 
that we give the following copious 
extracts: 
The complainant complained that 
the defendants were about “to cre- 
mate and consign to ashes the body 
of Frank B. Evans, recently deceased: 
that she and her family believe that 
the cremation of a body is contrary 
to religion and the will of God, and 
that unless restrained, the defendant 
will cause her to suffer irreparable in- 
jury; that cremation is not Christian 
burial, and that she will suffer great 
distress of mind and anguish of spirit 
if the body of her brother were cre- 
mated and that she would lose her 
interest in her brother’s body,” and 
she asks for an injunction, tempor- 
ary, then final. 
During the trial Nettie E. Bruce, a 
sister, testified: 
By Mr. Black — 
Q. What relation are you to Frank 
B. Evans? A. A sister. 
Q. What relatives did Mr. Evans 
leave? A. What relatives did he 
leave? He left a sister, Mrs. Frank 
Mulvy, Miss Lizzie Evans and my- 
self, and a Mrs. Clark of New York. 
Q. What attitude have you toward 
disposing of the body by cremation? 
A. I am very much opposed to cre- 
mation, not exactly on religious 
grounds, but it is the way our family 
feels on the subject. 
Then Mrs. Annie T. Evans, the 
widow, stated to the court: 
My husband is to be cremated. It 
was his wish years ago, and on ac- 
count of the way his father’s body 
was buried and the bones taken up, 
he had a horror of being buried in the 
ground and having his bones scat- 
tered afterward. Two years ago he 
said he wanted to be cremated. 
By Mr. Robert A. Black — 
Q. After the body is cremated, what 
do you expect to do with it? A. I will 
take care of the ashes in my home, 
as he requested me to do. 
Q. It was not your purpose to dis- 
pose of them in any cemetery? A. 
No, I intend to take care of them in 
my home as long as I live. 
By the Court — 
Q. Mrs. Evans, you have heard 
what these sisters say? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Have you any objection to hav- 
ing him buried in the ground at their 
joint request? A. Yes, sir. I am carry- 
ing out his wishes. He had a horror 
of being put in the ground on account 
of the way his father’s bones were 
taken up. 
Q. You are not willing to join with 
the sisters? A. No; I am going to 
carry out his wishes. 
Q. What are your wishes in the 
matter? A. Why, I want to have him 
put into a retort and cremated. I 
think it is the only sanitary thing to 
do and he felt in that way about it. 
What, Mr. Black, would you sug- 
gest should best be done under all 
the circumstances? 
I think that this body should be 
disposed of in such a manner that 
his relatives — his brothers and sisters 
— may come to his grave. As your 
Honor has seen, they are people ad- 
vanced in life, that there is not much 
left to them except the memory of 
their dead, and it seems to me that 
they ought to be given that privilege. 
What is your opinion as a lawyer, 
Mr. Black, as to what is just and 
right — not a sentimental opinion, but 
as a lawyer? 
I believe that the Court should 
have this body interred. The question 
of cremation has only been passed 
upon once and that is in an English 
report. You are asking purely as to 
law. The question of the direction of 
the decedent has been passed upon 
just once, and there the decedent 
left instructions for his body to be 
cremated. It was a case decided by 
the Lord Chancellor of England in 
1896. 
What did he decide? 
The body was taken by force and 
cremated, and the person doing it, 
and who was instructed by his last 
will to do that, brought suit to re- 
cover the expenses, and the Court 
refused to allow him the expenses. 
The only case in Ohio is the one of 
ITerold v. Herold, 3 N. P. (N. S.), 405. 
In that case the decedent requested 
that his body be interred at a place a 
very great distance from where he 
died. It was objected to by the 
widow and supported by the rest of 
the family. The Court refused to 
carry out the request. 
What was the reason given for 
that decision? 
Because it was unreasonable under 
all the circumstances. The question 
of expense entered into that case. 
What do you mean by unreason- 
able? 
