other objects of charity " as the testator should mention, was held to be charitable. Where, however, there is a perpetual trust in favour of poor Perpetual relations it is charitable, and the persons to take cannot be confined trust. to those coming within the Statute of Distributions (b). Where the gift is for the "poorest" of the testator's relations or "Poorest." kindred, it can only be charitable if upon the construction of the will it appears to be intended only for persons actually poor; that is to say, "poorest" must be construed to mean "very poor." If it were not intended only for persons actually poor, but might include the least wealthy of a wealthy class, it would not be charitable (c). For if wealthy persons are to take the benefit of a gift of this kind it is not charitable. Advancement of Learning. Gifts for schools of learning (d) are within the express language Advancement of the Statute of Elizabeth, and gifts for the advancement of of learning. learning generally are charitable within its intendment. Thus, gifts for the benefit and advancement and propagation of learning in every part of the world (e), for the increase of knowledge (f), or to build or erect a school or free grammar school (g), or a school for boys, with preference to the lineal descendants of the testator's grandfather (h), even a school for the sons of gentlemen (1), or to support a school (4), or to maintain a schoolmaster (1), have been held charitable. So also a bequest to the masters and fellows of a college (m), Scholarships, a bequest for the foundation of a scholarship ("), fellowship (o), or prizes, &c. lectureship (p), for founding prizes for essays (1), or for the (b) White v. White, 7 Ves. 423; Isaac v. De Friez, 17 Ves. 373, n.; Att.-Gen. v. Price, ibid. 373. See Peek v. Peek, 17 W. R. 1059. (c) Att.-Gen. v. Duke of Northumberland, 7 Ch. D. 745, overruling the dictum of Wickens, V.-C., in Gillam v. Taylor, L. R. 16 Eq. 581; and see also Isaac v. De Friez, Amb. 595; Att.-Gen. v. Price, 17 Ves. 371. (d) Att.-Gen. v. Nash, 3 Bro. C. C. 587 Kirkbank v. Hudson, 7 Price, 212. (e) Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. C. 124. See also Incorporated Society v. Richards, 1 Dr. & W. 258. (f) President of United States v. Drummond, cited 7 H. L. C. at p. 155. (9) Case of Rugby School, Duke, 80; Gibbons v. Maltyard, Poph. 6. But as to how far such gifts are within the mortmain provisions, see note (0) to sect. 4 of the Mortmain and Charit. Uses Act, 1888, post. (h) Braund v. Earl of Devon, L. R. 3 Ch. 800. (i) Att.-Gen. v. Earl of Lonsdale, 1 Sim. 105. (k) Re Sir Robert Peel's School at Tamworth, L. R. 3 Ch. 543; and see Hartshorne v. Nicholson, 26 Beav. 58. (1) Hynshaw v. Corporation of Morpeth, Duke, 69. (m) Plate v. St. John's College, Duke, (n) Rex v. Newman, 1 Lev. 284; Re (p) Att.-Gen. v. Margaret and Regius (9) Thompson v. Thompson, 1 Coll. at Religious purposes. Repair or ornament of church. Private chapel. Repair of education of relations of descendants and kindred of the testator in a college at one of the universities (7), have been held to be charitable within the intent of the statute (s). A gift to Trinity College, Dublin, for the promotion of knowledge of the Irish language was charitable (†). Advancement of Religion. Gifts for the advancement of religion are by analogy held to be within the Statute of Elizabeth. Thus, bequests for the good (u), for the reparation, furniture, or ornaments (x) of a parish church, or for building and endowing a church (y), or for keeping in repair a chancel (), or a window or monument in a church (a), or any part of the fabric of a church, are charitable. Upon the same principle, a bequest for providing a new church clock (b), or keeping the chimes of a church in repair (c), or for keeping up an organ and furnishing a stipend to the organist (d), or for the repair of a parsonage house (e), are charitable. But a bequest for the maintenance and repair of a private chapel is not charitable (ƒ). A bequest of money not exceeding 5007., upon trust to apply churchyard. the income in repairing a churchyard, was held to be charitable, as being for the benefit of the inhabitants at large, and to come within the Church Building Act (g). lege, L. R. 16 Eq. 19, where the be- (r) Att.-Gen. v. Sidney Sussex College, (s) Case of Christ's College, Cambridge, 1 W. Bl. 90; Att.-Gen. v. Combe, 2 Ch. Ca. 18; Porter's Case, 1 Rep. 25 b; Att.-Gen. v. Whorwood, 1 Ves. Sen. 534; Braund v. Earl of Devon, L. R. 3 Ch. 800. (t) Att.-Gen. v. Flood, Hayes & J., App. xxi. Cf. Brownjohn v. Gale, W. N. 1869, 133. (u) Wingfield's Case, Duke, 80. (x) Att.-Gen. v. Ruper, 2 P. Wms. 125; Att.-Gen. v. Vivian, 1 Russ. 226; Re Estate of Church of Donington-on Baine, 6 Jur. N. S. 290; Att.-Gen. v. (y) Re Parker, 4 H. & N. 666. (z) Hoare v. Osborne, L. R. 1 Eq. 585. (a) Ibid.; Re Rigley's Trusts, 36 L. J. Ch. 147. (b) Re Hendry, Watson v. Blakeney, 56 L. T. N. S. 908; Re Church Estate Charity, L. R. 6 Ch. 296. (c) Turner v. Ogden, 1 Cox, 316. (d) Att.-Gen. v. Oakover, cited 1 Ves. Sen. 535. Lord Hardwicke, however, held in that case that an annuity to choristers of a parish church was not charitable. See also Durour v. Motteux, 1 Ves. Sen. 320; Re Palatine Estate Charity, 39 Ch. D. 54. (e) Att.-Gen. v. Bishop of Chester, 1 Bro. C. C. 444. (f) Hoare v. Hoare, 56 L. T. N. S., 147. (g) 43 Geo. III. c. 108. See note to sect. 8 of the Mortmain and Charit. Uses Act, 1888, post; Re Vaughan, Vaughan v. Thomas, 33 Ch. D. 187. tombs. But a bequest for building, maintaining, or keeping in repair Building and the vaults or tombs of the testator or his family, not being within repair of a church, is not for the benefit of the inhabitants of the parish generally, and is therefore not charitable (). And a trust for that purpose extending beyond the limit allowed by the rule against perpetuities is void (i). But there is nothing to render such a bequest invalid if a perpetual trust is not created (k). A bequest of this kind, not being charitable, is not within the Church Building Act (7). clergymen Bequests to a minister for preaching (m), or to the minister for Providing the time being (»), for a priest and his successors as an addition to and augmentthe stipend (0), for a pension for a perpetual curate (p), for un- ing benefices. beneficed curates (q), for the incumbent of a church so long as he shall permit the sittings to be occupied free (r), or to a minister and his successors so long as he shall teach a particular doctrine (s), or for preaching an anniversary sermon (t), or to establish a bishopric (u), are charitable. So, also, augmentations by ecclesiastical persons to small vicarages and curacies (v), and bequests to Queen Anne's Bounty (x). (h) Masters v. Masters, 1 P. Wms. 422, 423, n. 1; Gravenor v. Hallum, Amb. 643; Durour v. Motteux, 1 Ves. Sen. 320; Doe v. Pitcher, 3 M. & S. 407; and see Mitford v. Reynolds, 1 Ph. 185, 198; Mellick v. President, &c. of the Asylum, Jac. 180; Adnam v. Cole, 6 Beav. 353; Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Sim. N. S. 255; Willis v. Brown, 2 Jur. 987; Rickard v. Robson, 31 Beav. 244; Fowler v. Fowler, 33 Beav. 616; Hoare v. 08borne, L. R. 1 Eq. 585; Re Rigley's Trusts, 36 L. J. Ch. 147; Fisk v. Att.Gen., L. R. 4 Eq. 521; Hunter v. Bullock, L. R. 14 Eq. 45; Dawson v. Small, L. R. 18 Eq. 114; Re Williams, 5 Ch. D. 735; Re Birkett, 9 Ch. D. 576; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, L. R. 6 P. C. 381. (i) See post, p. 57. (k) Lloyd v. Lloyd, 2 Sim. N. S. 255; Willis v. Brown, 2 Jur. 987; Mitford v. Reynolds, 1 Ph. 185; Mellick v. President, &c. of the Asylum, Jac. 180; Adnam v. Cole, 6 Beav. 353; Trimmer v. Danby, 25 L. J. Ch. 424; Mussett v. Bingle, W. N. 1876, 170. (7) 43 Geo. III. c. 108. See notes to sect. 8 of the Mortmain and Charit. Uses Act, 1888, post; Re Rigley's Trusts, 36 L. J. Ch. 147; Re Vaughan, Vaughan v. Thomas, 33 Ch. D. 187. (m) Gibbons v. Maltyard, Poph, 6; Pember v. Inhabitants of Knighton, Duke, (n) Att.-Gen. v. Sparkes, Amb. 201. (p) Att.-Gen. v. Parker, 1 Ves. Sen. (q) Pennington v. Buckley, 6 Hare, 453. (8) Att.-Gen. v. Molland, 1 You. 562. (v) Att.-Gen. v. Brereton, 2 Ves. Sen. Gifts to individual preachers. Individuals to be selected by third person. Validity of gift may depend on whether it is to individual or not. Religious institutions. Where, however, the bequest is not intended to be for the benefit of the person for the time being holding the office of minister, but is merely a gift to the particular individual then occupying the office, it is not charitable (y). A gift to the chaplain of a private chapel is not charitable (≈). This may be the case, even though the particular individuals to take are not specified, but are left to be selected by another person, and notwithstanding that the motive of the gift may be the relief of poverty. Thus, a bequest to sixty pious ejected ministers to be named by another person, was held to be a legacy to particular individuals, and not charitable (a). Similarly, in Thomas v. Howell (b), a legacy to each of ten poor clergymen of the Church of England, to be selected by a specified person, was held not to be charitable. Where the gift is of land or other property which, under the mortmain provisions (c), cannot be given to charity, the validity of the gift will depend on the question whether it is a gift to the particular individual or whether it is annexed to the office. In the former case it will be good (d), in the latter bad (e). Gifts to institutions having for their object purposes connected with the advancement of religion, as the Church Building Society, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Church Missionary Society (ƒ), the Additional Curates' Aid Society, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the Church Pastoral Aid Society (g), are charitable. Similarly, gifts to "charitable institutions and purposes within the kingdom of England" (h), to certain religious charitable institutions by name, and "any other religious institutions or purposes" as the trustees might think proper (¿), or for distribution, (y) Doe v. Aldridge, 4 T. R. 265. See Donnellan v. O'Neill, Ir. R. 5 Eq. 523; Thornber v. Wilson, 3 Drew. 245; Farrer v. St. Catherine's College, Cambridge, L. R. 16 Eq. 19. (z) Hoare v. Hoare, 56 L. T. N. S. 147. (a) Att.-Gen. v. Hughes, 2 Vern. 105, reversing S. C., nom. Att.-Gen. v. Baxter, 1 Vern. 248. See Moggridge v. Thackwell, 7 Ves. at p. 76, where this case is explained. (b) L. R. 18 Eq. 198; cf. Liley v. Hay, 1 Hare, 580; Att.-Gen. v. Gleg, Amb. 584. Legacies payable once for all are, however, often charitable, as in the case of gifts for poor persons. See Att.Gen. v. Comber, 2 S. & S. 93; Russell v. Kellett, 3 Sm. & G. 264, and other cases cited ante, p. 3. (c) Mortmain and Charit. Uses Act, 1888, s. 4, and notes, post. (d) Doe v. Aldridge, 4 T. R. 265; and see Donnellan v. O'Neill, Ir. R. 5 Eq. 523. (e) Thornber v. Wilson, 3 Drew. 245. See also Att.-Gen. v. Cock, 2 Ves. Sen. 273. (f) Re Clergy Society, 2 K. & J. 615. (i) Wilkinson v. Lindgren, L. R. 5 Ch. 570; see Townsend v. Carus, 3 Hare, 257; and cf. Dolan v. Macdermot, L. R. 3 Ch. 676, post, p. 11. as by a community of nuns, among the poor or suffering classes, have been held good as charities (k). So, also, a bequest to a voluntary association, as an association Religious community. of nuns, sisters of mercy, missionaries, &c., united for the purpose of performing charitable functions, as teaching the poor and nursing the sick, is charitable (7). Gifts for religious purposes are, however, only charitable where Gifts for they extend, directly or indirectly, to the instruction or benefit of the public. religious purposes not charitable where public not benefited Bequest for individual the community. the Prayers for Thus, a bequest intended for the benefit of the individual members of a religious community is not charitable (m). So, also, bequests for prayers or masses for the soul of the members of testator (n), or for performing religious ceremonies (o) for testator, &c., are not charitable, for such gifts are only for benefit or solace of the testator or his family. Again, a gift for the benefit of a religious community, the Community members of which are associated for the sole purpose of working only for out their own salvation, would not be charitable (p). testator's soul. established benefit of its members. V. In Cocks v. Manners (q), a residue consisting of pure and impure cocks. personalty was left between two religious institutions. One of Manners. them was a Dominican convent where Roman Catholic women lived together by mutual agreement for the purpose of sanctifying their own souls. The other was a community of Sisters of Charity of St. Paul, also a voluntary association, whose primary object was personal sanctification, but who, as a means thereto, employed themselves in works of charity, such as teaching the poor and nursing the sick. The testator directed the payments to be made to the superior for the time being of each institution. Wickens, V.-C., held, first, that the community of the Sisters of St. Paul was a charitable institution, and that the bequest to them was good as to the pure personalty only: secondly, that the bequest to the Dominican convent was not charitable, and that, as it was not void on the ground of perpetuity, it was good both as to pure and impure personalty. (k) See Dillon v. Reilly, Ir. R. 10 Eq. 152; Carbery v. Cox, 3 Ir. Ch. R. 231; Nash v. Morley, 5 Beav. 177; Townsend v. Carus, 3 Hare, 257; Walsh v. Gladstone, 1 Ph. 290. (1) Cocks v. Manners, L. R. 12 Eq. at p. 584; Mahony v. Duggan, 11 L. R. Ir. 260. (m) Stewart v. Green, Ir. R. 5 Eq. 470; Re Delany's Estate, 9 L. R. Ir. 226; Morrow v. M'Conville, 11 L. R. Ir. 236; Re Wilkinson's Trusts, 19 L. R. Ir. 531; Bradshaw v. Jackman, 21 L. R. Ir. 12. See also Hogan v. Byrne, 13 Ir. C. L. R. 166, where the gift was void for (n) West v. Shuttleworth, 2 My. & K. (0) Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheng Neo, L. R. 6 P. C. at p. 396. (p) Cocks v. Manners, L. R. 12 Eq. 574. See Stewart v. Green, supra ; Morrow v. M'Conville, supra; and Re Wilkinson's Trusts, supra. (9) Supra. |