Society for suppression of cruelty to animals by prayer. General poses. In a recent case, an opinion was expressed that a gift to a society, the object of which was the suppression of cruelty to animals by means of private prayer on the part of the individual members, would not be charitable (). Bequests for general religious purposes, as the advancement of religious pur- Christianity among infidels (s), for the distribution of bibles and other religious books (t), to be employed "in the service of my Lord and Master" (u), for maintaining the worship of God (a), or for the spread of the Gospel (y), are good charitable gifts. Dissenters, Roman Catholics, Jews, &c. A bequest to trustees "upon trust to pay, divide, or dispose thereof unto or for the benefit or advancement of such societies, subscriptions, or purposes, having regard to the glory of God in the spiritual welfare of his creatures, as they shall in their discretion see fit," was held to be a gift for religious purposes and was so restricted (z). It makes no difference that the gift is for the advancement of religious doctrines differing from those of the Established Church, so long as they are not subversive of all religion and morality (a). Thus, trusts for maintaining dissenting (b), or Roman Catholic (c) chapels are charitable. So, also, a gift to promote the Roman Catholic religion (d), " for the use of Roman Catholic priests in and near London" (e), or as an addition to the stipend of the priest of a Roman Catholic chapel (f). But a bequest to Roman Catholic bishops and their successors, there being no such persons known to the law, was held void (g). The same is the case with gifts for the benefit of Unitarians (h), Jews (1), Baptists (k), Presbyterians (1), Irvingites (m), Methodists (n), and other dissenting bodies (o). (r) Re Joy, Purday v. Johnson, 60 L. T. N. S. 175. (s) Att.-Gen. v. City of London, 1 Ves. Jun. 243. (t) Att.-Gen. v. Stepney, 10 Ves. 22; Thornton v. Howe, 31 Beav. 14. (u) Powerscourt v. Powerscourt, 1 Moll. 616; and see Felan v. Russell, 4 Ir. Eq. R. 701. (x) Att.-Gen. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 353, 409. (y) Re Lea, Lea v. Cooke, 34 Ch. D. (2) Townsend v. Carus, 3 Hare, 257. (b) Att.-Gen v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 353; (c) De Windt v. De Windt, 23 L. J. Ch. 776. (d) West v. Shuttleworth, 2 My. & K. 684. (e) Att.-Gen. v. Gladstone, 13 Sim. 7. (f) Thornber v. Wilson, 3 Drew. 245; and see Att.-Gen. v. Cock, 2 Ves. Sen. 273. (9) Att.-Gen. v. Power, 1 Ball & B. 145. (h) Re Barnett, 29 L. J. Ch. 871; Shrewsbury v. Hornby, 5 Hare, 406; Shore v. Wilson, 9 Cl. & F. 355. (i) Da Costa v. De Paz, 2 Swanst. 487, n.; Straus v. Goldsmid, 8 Sim. 614. (k) Att.-Gen. v. Cock, 2 Ves. Sen. 273. (1) Lloyd v. Spillet, 2 Atk. 148. (m) Att.-Gen v. Lawes, 8 Hare, 32. (n) Dawson v. Small, L. R. 18 Eq. 114. (0) Att.-Gen. v. Hickman, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 193, pl. 14; Waller v. Childs, Amb. 524. A bequest for distributing the works of Joanna Southcote was held charitable (p). But a legacy for the best essay on the sufficiency of Natural Theology treated as a science, was held void as subversive of Christianity (q). General Public Purposes. Gifts for public and general purposes, although beneficial to the Gifts for rich as well as the poor, are held to be charitable within the intent public and general purof the Statute of Elizabeth. It is not material that the particular poses. public or general purpose is not expressed in the statute, all other legal public or general purposes being within its purview (). taxes. So a bequest" for the discharge of the tax of the Commonalty Discharging of G., to King Henry VII., and his successors, henceforth to be granted," was charitable (s). kingdom. A bequest "to the Queen's Chancellor of the Exchequer for the General time being, and to be by him appropriated to the benefit and benefit of advantage of my beloved country Great Britain," was held a good charitable bequest (†). And the same would be the case with a gift towards payment of National debt. the national debt (u). in India. In Mitford v. Reynolds (x), a gift by a testator of the remainder Gift for benefit of city of his property to the Government of Bengal, to be applied" to charitable, beneficial, and public works, at and in the city of Dacca in Bengal," for the exclusive benefit of the native inhabitants in such manner as they and the government might regard as most conducive to that end, was held to be a good charitable bequest. Gifts for the benefit of a parish generally, or the inhabitants of Gift for a particular place (y), for such charities and other public purposes as parish or lawfully might be in a particular parish (z), or for the use or town. benefit of a borough town, or the inhabitants thereof, or of the (p) Thornton v. Howe, 31 Beav. 14. See also Pare v. Clegg, 29 Beav. 589, and Russell v. Jackson, 10 Hare, at p. 215, with regard to the socialistic doctrines of Robert Owen. (a) Briggs v. Hartley, 19 L. J. Ch. 416. See, however, Farrer v. St. Catharine's College, Cambridge, L. R. 16 Eq. 19, and Thompson v. Thompson, 1 Coll. at p. 397. (r) Att.-Gen. v. Heelis, 2 S. & S. at p. 76. See also post, p. 366, n. (c). (8) Att.-Gen. v. Bushby, 24 Beav. 299. (t) Nightingale v. Goulbourn, 2 Ph. 594. (u) See Thellusson v. Woodford, 4 Ves. 235, 298, 310; Newland v. Att.-Gen., 3 Mer. 684; Trustees of British Mu- (y) West v. Knight, 1 Ch. Ca. 134; (z) Dolan v. Macdermot, L. R. 3 Ch. 676; cf. Wilkinson v. Lindgren, L. R. 5 Ch. 570; and distinguish Morice v. Bishop of Durham, 10 Ves. 522; Williams v. Kershaw, 5 Cl. & F. 111, and other cases cited post, pp. 36, 37. benefit of Grant of pasture for inhabitants. Goodman v. ash. institutions of the said borough (a), are charitable. And any trust of property, from whatever source derived, whether from the gift of the legislature or the sovereign, or from private gift, and however the trust became imposed, in favour of a parish or a town, or the inhabitants thereof, or a particular class of such inhabitants, is a charitable trust (b).. Thus, an ancient grant of land for the pasture, during three months of the year, of the cows of "as many of the inhabitants of a certain village "as were able to buy three cows," and during seven months of the rest of the year "to be in common for all the inhabitants" was held a charity (c). In Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash (d), it was proved that a preMayor of Salt- scriptive right to a several oyster fishery in a tidal river had been exercised from time immemorial by a borough corporation, without any qualification except that during a certain period of the year the free inhabitants of ancient tenements in the borough had from time immemorial exercised the privilege of dredging for oysters. Upon this, it was presumed by the Court that the original grant to the corporation was subject to a trust in favour of the free inhabitants in accordance with the usage, and the trust so created was held a charitable trust. Wilson v. Re Christchurch Inclosure Act. In another case (e), the copyhold tenants of a manor, in consideration of their undertaking to keep a sea-dyke in repair, had had granted to them by Queen Elizabeth, as lady of the manor, the woods growing in a certain wood for the reparation of a portion of the dyke. The wood had been afterwards cut down and the proceeds invested by the tenants. The sea having receded, there was no longer any need to repair the sea-wall. It was held that the grant of the woods was a gift for charitable purposes. So, also, where Inclosure Commissioners had allotted a portion of waste to the lord of the manor in trust for the occupiers for the time being of certain cottages for a turf common, and a railway (a)_Mayor of Wrexham v. Tamplin, 21 W. R. 768; Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Dartmouth, 48 L. T. N. S. 933. (b) Att.-Gen. v. Heelis, 2 S. & S. at p. 76; Att.-Gen. v. Lord Hotham, T. & R. 209; Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Carlisle, 2 Sim. 437; Att.-Gen. v. Webster, L. R. 20 Eq. 483; Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, 7 App. Cas. at p. 642; Re St. Alphage, London Wall, Parish Estates, 59 L. T.N.S. 614; Re St. Bride's, Fleet Street, 35 Ch. D. 147, n.; Re St. Botolph Without Bishopsgate Parish Estates, 35 Ch. D. 142; Re St. Stephen, Coleman Street, 39 Ch. D. 492; Re Parish of St. Nicholas, Acons, Times, 5 March, 1889; contra, Att.-Gen. v. Hewer, 2 Vern. 387. (c) Wright v. Hobert, 9 Mod. 64; Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Cashel, 3 Dr. & W. 294. (d) 7 App. Cas. 633; and see Prestney v. Mayor of Colchester, 21 Ch. D. at p. 119, and the Scotch cases of Dyce v. Hay, 1 Macq. 305, and Sanderson v. Lees, 22 Sess. Cas. 2nd Ser. 24; Stanley v. Mayor of Norwich, 3 Times L. R. 506; Re Norwich Town Close Estate Charity, 40 Ch. D. 298. (e) Wilson v. Barnes, 38 Ch. D. 507. See Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Galway, 1 Moll. 95; Att.-Gen. v. Mayor, &c. of Carlisle, 2 Sim. 437. company had purchased a portion of the land, it was held that the lord of the manor was entitled to so much of the purchase-money as represented the value of the soil, and that the remainder was subject to a charitable trust for the benefit of the occupiers of the cottages (ƒ). Colchester. In Prestney v. Mayor, &c. of Colchester (g), it seems to have been Prestney v. considered that property held by the corporation on trust for the Mayor, &c. of freemen of the borough was not subject to a charitable trust; but this decision seems somewhat inconsistent with the cases previously cited (h). There have been some cases, called by Jessel, M. R. (i), anoma- Advowson. lous cases, in which it appears to have been considered that an advowson cannot be held upon a charitable trust, even when the trust is for the benefit of the parish or parishioners for ever (k). On the other hand, there are old cases in which a trust of an advowson for the use or benefit of a parish has been held to be charitable (1). In this conflict of authorities it has recently been decided that an advowson vested in trustees for the benefit of the parish, the vicar being always chosen by the parishioners, is charity property (m). Gifts in aid of the rates are charitable. Thus, funds derived Gifts in aid of from the gift of the Crown or of the legislature, or from private rates. gifts, for paving, lighting, cleaning, and improving a town are within the equity of the Statute of Elizabeth, and are charitable (n). Gifts to bring spring water for the inhabitants of a town (0), to build a sessions house or house of correction (p), for the repair of highways (q), or bridges (), or for repairing the church and (f) Re Christchurch Inclosure Act, 38 Ch. D. 520. (g) 21 Ch. D. at p. 119. (h) See Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, and Re Norwich Town Close Estate Charity, supra. (i) Att.-Gen. v. Webster, L. R. 20 Eq. at p. 491. (k) Att.-Gen. v. Parker, 1 Ves. Sen. 43; Att.-Gen. v. Forster, 10 Ves. 335; Att.-Gen. v. Rutter, Russ. 101, n.; Att.-Gen. v. Newcombe, 14 Ves. 1; Fearon v. Webb, ibid. 13. And see Att.Gen. v. Webster, supra. (1) Att.-Gen. v. Scott, 1 Ves. Sen. 413; Foley v. Att.-Gen., 2 Bro. P. C. 368; Att.-Gen. v. Bishop of Litchfield, 5 Ves. 825; Att.-Gen. v. Ward, 7 L. J. O. S. Ch. 114, where it was held that an advowson might be given to a charitable use. (m) Re St. Stephen, Coleman St., 39 Ch. D. 492. As to a vicarage house held upon trust for the parishioners there could, of course, be no question: ibid. at p. 505. (n) Per Leach, V.-C., in Att.-Gen. v. (0) Jones v. Williams, Amb. 651. (1) Eltham Parish v. Warreyn, Duke, (r) Forbes v. Forbes, 18 Beav. 552; and see Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Shrewsbury, 6 Beav. 220. Poor rate. Workhouse. Source from which funds derived immaterial. Funds derived from rates and tolls. conduits of the town, the relief of the poor and maintenance of fortifications (s), or for furnishing a lifeboat (t), are charitable. So a gift to churchwardens in aid of the poor rate (u), or to a corporation to enable it to perform its statutory obligation of providing relief for the poor (v), is charitable. Where part of a common was granted to a vestry for a workhouse and cemetery, and another part for the benefit of the poor of the parish, it was held that the grant was charitable (x). In one case (y) a conveyance of land to the overseers of the poor and churchwardens, to be used as a poor-house, was held not to be within 9 Geo. II. c. 36 (≈), on the ground that it was not a conveyance to charitable uses. But this is inconsistent with the cases previously cited (a), and has recently been expressly dissented from (b). Sir John Leach was of opinion that it was the source from which funds were derived, and not the purposes to which they were dedicated, which constituted them charitable; and that although funds derived from the gift of the Crown, or the gift of the legislature for general public purposes, would be charitable, rates levied under Act of Parliament for such purposes, being in no sense derived from bounty or charity in the most extensive sense of the word, would not be charitable (c). This view is, however, opposed to the current of authorities; and it must be considered that in determining whether a fund is charitable the source from which it was derived is not to be regarded, but merely the purposes to which it is applied (d). Funds, therefore, applicable to general public purposes, even though derived from taxation, are charitable (e). Thus, "an imposition granted upon commodities imported or transported, to be employed upon repair of ports or havens where (s) Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Dartmouth, (t) Johnston v. Swann, 3 Madd. 457; (y) Burnaby v. Barsby, 4 H. & N. (3) Now Part II. of the Mortmain and Charit. Uses Act, 1888, post. See (a) Att.-Gen. v. Blizard, supra. Att.-Gen. v. Heelis, supra; Doev. Howells, supra; Att.-Gen. v. Corporation of Berwickupon-Tweed, supra. (b) Webster v. Southey, 36 Ch. D. 9. See also Re St. Botolph Without Bishopsgate Charity Estates, 35 Ch. D. 142. (e) Att.-Gen. v. Heelis, 2 S. & S. at p. 77. See Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Galway, 1 Moll. 95. (d) Att.-Gen. v. Brown, 1 Swanst. 265; Att.-Gen. v. Mayor of Dublin, 1 Bli. N. S. at pp. 334-336; Att.-Gen. y. Eastlake, 11 Hare, 205; Re St. Bride's, Fleet Street, 35 Ch. D. 147, n. ; Re St. Botolph Without Bishopsgate Parish Estates, 35 Ch. D. at pp. 150, 151; and see Hall v. Derby Sanitary Authority, 16 Q. B. D. at p. 171. (e) Ibid. See also post, p. 70. |