A bequest of Bank Annuities to the poor inhabitants of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, was held good; but as the word inhabitant might extend to every body living in the parish (i), and as it could not be intended that the poor inhabitants who were relieved by the parish should have the benefit of the legacy, which in effect would be giving to the rich and not to the poor, the Court declared, that the distribution of the legacies was to be confined to the poor inhabitants of that parish not receiving alms, according to a scheme to be approved by the master (k).

A legacy given to the poor, by a will containing no words shewing what poor the testator, who was a French refugee, meant, was ordered to be given to the poor refugees (1).

A conveyance of lands to trustees and their heirs, "in trust for the churchwardens and overseers of the poor and inhabitants of the parish of St. Owen, for the time being, to the intent that the rents and profits might be paid and applied for their use and benefit, from time to time, in aid of the rate for the relief of the poor," was held to be for a charitable use (m).

3. Gifts to poor relations.] An immediate bequest to "poor relations," must be applied to the use of such poor relations only as come within the degrees prescribed by the Statute of Distributions (n); but a donation in the same terms,

(1) The word inhabitants of any county, city, or other place, either in its strict or popular sense, means those persons who are dwelling therein. Rex v. Hall, 1 Barn. & Cr. 136; S. C. 2 Dowl. & Ryl. 246. See Fearon v. Webb, 14 Ves. 13.

(k) Attorney General v. Clarke, Ambl. 422.

See the following cases, on this subject: Thomas v. Hole, Cas. Temp. Talb. 251; Green v. Howard, 1 Br. C. C. 31; Widmore v. Woodroffe, Ambl. 636; Whithorne v. Harris, 2 Ves. sen. 527; Edge v. Salisbury, Ambl. 70; Carr v. Bedford, 2 Rep. in Ch. 77; Griffith v. Jones, Id. 179, 2 Freem. 96; Jones v. Beale,

(1) Attorney General v. Rance, 2 Vern. 381, Anon., 1 P. Wms. Ambl. 422. 327; Roach v. Hammond, Prec. in (m) Doe d. Preece v. Howells and Ch. 401; Attorney General v. Buckothers, 2 Barn. & Ad. 744. land, cited Ambl. 71, 1 Ves, sen. 231; Harding v. Glyn, 1 Atk. 469;

(n) 22 & 23 Charles II. c. 10.

if intended to found an endowment of permanent duration, will be supported as a charity in favour of all such relations of the testator as are poor and proper objects.

A gift of the produce of land directed to be sold, and to be distributed unto 20 of the poor of the testator's kindred, although it did not appear that he had any, was said to be charitable (o).

So, a bequest of a personal fund, consisting of about 30007. stock, for the purpose of putting out "our poor relations apprentices," which was afterwards confined by a codicil to two families, was held a charitable gift, and the decree directed such of the objects as were ready, to be put out apprentices; and the fund to be laid out from time to time, with liberty to apply to the Court (p).

Again, where a testator, by will dated 3rd August, 1725, bequeathed to his eldest sister an annuity of 50l. during her life, and after her decease he gave the same unto his own and his wife's poorest relations, to be distributed and paid to them and such of them proportionably, share and share alike, at the discretion of his executors: he also gave an annuity of 101. to another sister during her life, with a similar disposition over, after her decease: the testator also gave the interest of his stock to his wife, and after her decease one half-year's interest to one poor relation of his own, either male or female, for a portion in the way of marriage, and putting him or her out in the world; and the other moiety in the same manner to one poor relation of his wife's; the direct management thereof to be left to the discretion of his executors; and if his own and his said wife's relations should be extinct, then he gave the said stock and securities, and the produce, as therein mentioned :-on a bill filed by the trus

Bennett v. Honeywood, Ambl. 708; Supple v. Lowson, Ambl. 729; Rayner v. Mowbray, 3 Br. C. C. 234; Stamp v. Cooke, 1 Cox, 234; Masters v. Hooper, 4 Br. C. C. 207; Hands v. Hands, 1 T. R. 437 n.; Devisme v. Mellish, 5 Ves. 529; Mahon

v. Savage, 1 Sch. & Lef. 111; Pope v. Whitcombe, 3 Mer. 689; Brandon v. Brandon, 3 Swanst. 319, 1 Roper on Leg. 91-109, 3rd ed.

(0) Goffe v. Webb, Duke, 80 (361); S. C. Toth. 20.

(p) White v. White, 7 Ves. 423.

tees under the will, against the Attorney General and some of the poor relations, a decree was made, declaring that the charity should be established; and directing an account of the arrears and growing payments of the annuities, and of the dividends of the stock, &c., with liberty for any of the parties to lay a scheme before the master for carrying the said charity into execution, according to the intention of the will; and an inquiry whether some of the defendants were poor relations of the testator; with liberty to any other poor relations of him or his late wife, to go before the master to claim such benefit as they might be entitled to under the charitable bequest in the will (q).

So where a testator by will dated 3rd August, 1581, devised all his messuages, lands, &c., to his wife for 40 years, if she should so long live, and after her death to Evan Johnes and his heirs, with the following direction-" Also, that he, the said Evan Johnes, shall, at what time soever the possession of the same premises shall fall and come to him by virtue of this my will, yearly, from thenceforth, he the said Evan Johnes, and his heirs, shall for ever divide and distribute, according to his and their discretion, amongst my poor kinsmen and kinswomen, and amongst their offspring and issue which shall dwell within the county of Brecon, the sum of 201. by the year, without fraud and collusion." On an information and bill filed by three poor relations of the testator, on the behalf of themselves and all others, the answer to which submitted that the devise was void for uncertainty, the gift was held to be in the nature of a charitable bequest, for it was to have perpetual continuance in favour of a particular description of poor, and was not like an immediate bequest among poor relations; and an inquiry was directed, whether the plaintiffs were poor relations of the testator, and whether there were any others of his poor relations who dwelt within the county of Brecon (r).

(q) Isaac v. De Friez, Ambl. 595; Reg. lib. (A) 1753, stated in 17 Ves. 373 n.; See Brunsden v. Woolridge,

Ambl. 507.

(r) Attorney General v. Price, 17 Ves. 371.

F

In Blandford v. Thackerell (s), a trust for establishing a school for the education of the children and grandchildren of relations of the testator, named by him, and for other children, being void, on account of a direction to purchase land, was established so far as it provided for the education of the children and grandchildren of any of the stocks named in the will in existence at the testator's death.

It was decided, in a case of appeal from Scotland, to be competent for a party by deed to point out particular classes of persons which are intended to be the objects of his favour, and then to leave it to an individual or a body of individuals after his death, to select out of those classes the particular individuals or the particular objects to whom the bounty of the testator shall be applied. Where a Scotch testamentary instrument directed the residue of an estate to be applied in such charitable purposes, and in bequests to such of the donor's friends and relations, as might be pointed out by his wife, with the approbation of a majority of his trustees; and in the event of her decease or entering into a second marriage before such approbation should have been pointed out and approved of as aforesaid, then he empowered the majority of the remaining trustees to make the application in the way and manner they would conceive to be most agreeable to his wishes if in life; it was held, that the trustees might dispose of the property among certain classes of persons, or among particular objects, subject to the intention expressed by the donor, the creator of the trust, notwithstanding the generality of the disposition (t). *.

In some cases of gifts to "poor relations," or "to relations, the greatest objects of charity," the fund has been distributed by the order of the Court of Chancery amongst objects coming within that description, to the exclusion of other relations.

Where it appeared that one Ward in his lifetime gave

(s) 2 Ves. jun. 238; S. C. 4 Br. N. S. 424; S. C. 3 Wils. & Shaw, C. C. 394.

(t) Crichton v. Grierson, 3 Bligh,

329.

46001. South Sea bonds to a legatee under his will, and made a memorandum in his waste book, "of having given that sum to the legatee to dispose of according to my directions to him," and after the death of such legatee, a letter from him was found directed to his executrix, wherein he acknowledged, that the sum of 46007. South Sea bonds was given him to assist Ward's poor relations, and begged her to accept of the trust after his death, and out of the interest and produce thereof, he begged her chiefly to assist certain persons therein mentioned; on an information brought at the relation of one of Ward's poor relations, Lord Hardwicke said he did not know any instance where the Court of Chancery in any case of charity whatever, had taken to themselves an arbitrary disposition, as to confine it to a gift of the interest and produce only, when there is no more certainty of the donor's giving the capital than the interest, but it was left quite obscure and in the dark. It was decreed, that the gift of 46001. South Sea bonds, was a gift of the principal and interest of that fund for the benefit of Ward's poor relations, and the master was directed to inquire who came under the description of the donor as proper objects of the charity (u).

Where a testator gave "2000l. to such of his nearest relations of the family of the Edges, as his executors should think the greatest objects of charity, in such manner and proportion as they or the survivor, &c. should think fit, and desired them to take the advice and direction of his sister (who was his only next of kin), in the distribution thereof, if she should be living;" it was decreed, that the next of kin of the testator of the family of Edges, who would have been entitled to distributive shares of his personal estate, within the Statute of Distribution, in case he had died intestate, ought to be construed as intended by the description of nearest relations in the bequest in question, and that the executors, with the advice of the sister, had the power of

(u) Attorney General v. Bucknall, General v. Doyley, Eq. Cas. Abr. 2 Atk. 328; Reg. Lib. (A) 1741, 194, pl. 15; S.. 7 Ves. 58. fol. 636; Sand. n.; See Attorney