*468.* _Tombstone, Mother-in-Law._—A husband has the right to remove a tombstone that his mother-in-law put over his wife’s grave, and put up one of his own choice instead.(826) The general rule is that vaults and tombstones are personal property and may be removed “in good faith and with care and decency” by the next of kin.(827) *469.* _Trees, Authority._—It is a criminal offense to cut trees in a cemetery without right or authority.(828) *470.* _Charitable, Institution, Negligence._—A Catholic cemetery without capital stock or shares and paying no profits nor dividends, does not come under the head of a charitable institution so as to relieve it from liability for negligence.(829) *471.* _Equity, Repair, Injuries._—A cemetery association may by bill in equity be forced to keep walks and drives in good repair and consequently is liable for injuries resulting from its negligence.(830) CHAPTER XXXIV. MISCELLANEOUS *472.* _Societies, Law._—Religious societies organized in connection with a church or congregation are in law civil societies and not ecclesiastical corporations, and are governed by the law of the land. Therefore, the law of fraternities fully covers all questions that arise in such societies. The subject is too comprehensive to be treated at any length here.(831) *473.* _Society, Bishop._—A society may expel a member on due notice and a fair trial. The refusal of the bishop to recognize a fraternity organized as a Roman Catholic society, does not prevent the society and its officers from exercising the powers of a religious corporation conferred by law nor prohibit its members from maintaining their religious worship.(832) *474.* _Priest, Doorkeeper, Policemen, Arrest._—A priest who was in charge of a parish and had control of the temporalities consisting of pew-rents, Sunday and other collections, graveyard, church, school, fees, and donations, on account of disorderly behavior of members issued tickets to those to be admitted and ordered a doorkeeper to prevent others from entering the church. A woman without a ticket and talking loudly, endeavored to force her way into the church, although there were several policemen on duty who attempted to stop her. She was arrested and her husband brought suit for false imprisonment. The court held that a clergyman has a right to keep disturbers out of the church and that the doorkeepers have a right to use sufficient force to carry out the orders of the priest; but when a doorkeeper went beyond those orders by causing the arrest of the woman, he was not acting within the apparent scope of his employment and the priest was not liable.(833)