“The man married his deceased wife’s sister under the recent Act?” put in the Lawyer.

“Exactly.  And therefore, under the civil law, he is legally married and his child is legitimate.  But, you see, the man is the woman’s deceased husband’s brother, and therefore, also under the civil law, she is not married to him and her child is illegitimate.”

“He is married to her and she is not married to him!” said the Doctor.

“Quite so.  And the child is the legitimate son of his father, but the illegitimate son of his mother.”

“Undoubtedly ‘the law is a hass,’” the Artist exclaimed, “if I may be permitted to say so,” he added, with a bow to the Lawyer.

“Certainly,” was the reply.  “We lawyers try our best to break in the beast to the service of man.  Our legislators are responsible for the breed.”

“And this reminds me,” went on the Parson, “of a man in my parish who married the sister of his widow.  This man—­”

“Stop a moment, sir,” said the Professor.  “Married the sister of his widow?  Do you marry dead men in your parish?”

“No; but I will explain that later.  Well, this man has a sister of his own.  Their names are Stephen Brown and Jane Brown.  Last week a young fellow turned up whom Stephen introduced to me as his nephew.  Naturally, I spoke of Jane as his aunt, but, to my astonishment, the youth corrected me, assuring me that, though he was the nephew of Stephen, he was not the nephew of Jane, the sister of Stephen.  This perplexed me a good deal, but it is quite correct.”

The Lawyer was the first to get at the heart of the mystery.  What was his solution?

53.—­Heard on the tube railway.

First Lady:  “And was he related to you, dear?”

Second Lady:  “Oh, yes.  You see, that gentleman’s mother was my mother’s mother-in-law, but he is not on speaking terms with my papa.”

First Lady:  “Oh, indeed!” (But you could see that she was not much wiser.)

How was the gentleman related to the Second Lady?

54.—­A family party.

A certain family party consisted of 1 grandfather, 1 grandmother, 2 fathers, 2 mothers, 4 children, 3 grandchildren, 1 brother, 2 sisters, 2 sons, 2 daughters, 1 father-in-law, 1 mother-in-law, and 1 daughter-in-law.  Twenty-three people, you will say.  No; there were only seven persons present.  Can you show how this might be?

55.—­A mixed pedigree.

Joseph Bloggs:  “I can’t follow it, my dear boy.  It makes me dizzy!”

John Snoggs:  “It’s very simple.  Listen again!  You happen to be my father’s brother-in-law, my brother’s father-in-law, and also my father-in-law’s brother.  You see, my father was—­”

But Mr. Bloggs refused to hear any more.  Can the reader show how this extraordinary triple relationship might have come about?

56.—­Wilson’s poser.