CHAPTER XXVI. GIFTS TO CHARITABLE USES. Instances of charit I. WHAT ARE CHARITABLE GIFTS. CHARITY, in the legal sense, does not necessarily imply able gifts, relief of the poor. The stat. 43 Eliz. c. 4, defines various kinds of charities. But generally it may be said every gift for a public purpose, local or general, is charitable. See cases cited in the note to Loscombe v. Wintringham, 13 B. 87. Bequest for pur Thus gifts for the advancement of education and learning in every part of the world; for the glory of God in the spiritual welfare of His creatures; for the advancement of Great Britain; to any religious institution or purposes; or for charities and other public purposes in a certain parish, are charitable. Whicker v. Hume, 7 H. L. 124; Townshend v. Carus, 3 Ha. 257; Powerscourt v. Powerscourt, 1 Moll. 616; Nightingale v. Goulbourne, 5 Ha. 484; 2 Ph. 594; Wilkinson v. Lindgren, 5 Ch. 570; Dolan v. Macdermot, 3 Ch. 676. So, too, gifts for any educational or religious purpose, not contrary to morality or the law, are charitable. Thornton v. Howe, 31 B. 14; Beaumont v. Oliveira, 4 Ch. 309. For the construction of a gift to the hospitals of London, see Wallace v. A.-G., 33 B. 384. A bequest for objects of liberality or benevolence, or for Morice v. poses of volence is "purposes of general utility," is not charitable. liberality Bp. of Durham, 9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 521; James v. or beneAllan, 3 Mer. 17; Kendall v. Granger, 5 B. 300; see In not charitre Jarman's Estate; Leavers v. Clayton, 8 Ch. D. 584. able. And a bequest for private charity is void. Ommaney charity. v. Butcher, T. & R. 260. Private charitable association A bequest to a voluntary society existing for charitable What is a purposes is charitable. Cocks v. Manners, 12 Eq. 574. society. But a gift to a similar society for the use and benefit Voluntary of the society is not charitable, the object being not to existing benefit the charitable objects of the community, but the members of it themselves. Stewart v. Green, I. R. 5 470. Eq. A gift to a voluntary society existing merely for purposes of religious intercourse and edification of its members is not charitable. Cocks v. Manners, supra. Nor is a similar gift to a society existing merely for the mutual benefit of its members. In re Clark's Trust, 1 Ch. D. 497; Thompson v. Shakespeare, Jo. 612; 1 D. F. & J. 399; Carne v. Long, 2 D. F. & J. 75; Re Dutton, 4 Ex. D. 54. for private A gift for the use and benefit of a parish is charitable. Benefit of parish, A.-G. v. Lord Hotham, T. & R. 209; A.-G. v. Webster, 20 Eq. 483. build or A gift to build or repair the tomb of the testator or his Gift to family, not within a church, is not charitable. Mellick v. repair a President of the Asylum, Jac. 180; Lloyd v. Lloyd, tomb is not 2 Sim. N. S. 255; Adnam v. Cole, 6 B. 353; Rickard v. Robson, 31 B. 244; Hoare v. Osborne, L. R. 1 Eq. 585. Nor is such a gift within the statute 43 Geo. III. c. 108. Re Rigley's Trust, 15 W. R. 190; 36 L. J. Ch. 147. Such a gift, therefore, if it involves a perpetuity, is void. Rickard v. Robson, supra; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Ching Neo, L. R. 6 P. C. 381. a charity. But bequests to repair the fabric of the church, or even Gift to re pair the the ornaments within it, such as a monument or tomb, fabric of a church. are charitable. Hoare v. Osborne, L. R. 1 Eq. 585. Position of Dissenters and Roman Catholics. Dissenters. Roman Jews. Monastic orders. Dissenters and Roman Catholics are, as regards bequests for charitable purposes, on the same footing as the Established Church. 1 W. & M. c. 18; 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 115, s. 1; A.-G. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 353, 405. Thus bequests for the maintenance of Protestant Dissenters, or for the assistance of Unitarian congregations, or for the benefit of Irvingites, are valid. A.-G. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 353; Shrewsbury v. Hornby, 5 Ha. 406; A.-G. v. Lawes, 8 Ha. 32. So bequests to be applied to the use of Roman Catholic schools, or of a Roman Catholic college existing for the education of ecclesiastics and laymen, or to promote the Roman Catholic religion, or to assist in the completion of a Roman Catholic cathedral, are good. Bradshaw v. Tasker, 2 M. & K. 221; Walsh v. Gladstone, 1 Ph. 290; West v. Shuttleworth, 2 M. & K. 684; Dillon v. Reilly, I. R. 10 Eq. 152. By 9 & 10 Vict. c. 59, s. 2, Jews are, in respect to their schools, places for religious worship, education and charitable purposes, and the property held therewith, subject to the same laws as Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England. Since this statute bequests to enable persons professing the Jewish religion to observe its rites are valid. Straus v. Goldsmid, 8 Sim. 614; In re Michel's Trusts, 28 B. 39. It has been held in Ireland that bequests in favour of Jesuits and members of other religious orders of the Church of Rome bound by monastic or religious vows are void, as contravening the policy of 10 Geo. IV. c. 7 (see sections 33-36). No doubt the same rule would be applied in England. Thus bequests to be applied for the education and maintenance of priests of the order of St. Dominick in Ireland, and for the use of the Franciscan Convent at Wexford, have been held to be void. Sims v. Quinlan, 16 Ir. Ch. 191; 17 Ir. Ch. 43; Walsh v. Walsh, I. R. 4 Eq. 396; Kehoe v. Wilson, 7 L. R. Ir. 10. poachers. Upon a similar principle a bequest to purchase the Release of discharge of poachers committed for non-payment of fines, fees, or expenses under the Game Laws was held to be void. Thrupp v. Collett, 26 B. 125. The statutes removing religious disabilities have not Superstiaffected bequests to superstitious uses. The statute of 1 Edw. VI. c. 14, relates only to certain superstitious uses then existing. The earlier statute, 23 Hen. VIII. c. 10, relates only to assurances of land to churches and chapels. But by analogy to these statutes certain bequests are considered void as being superstitious uses. Cary v. Abbot, 7 Ves. 490. tious uses. for masses. Thus bequests to priests for offering masses for the Bequests souls of the dead are void, notwithstanding 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 115, and go to the next of kin. West v. Shuttleworth, 2 M. & K. 684; Heath v. Chapman, 2 Dr. 417; Re Blundell's Trusts, 30 B. 360; In re Fleetwood; Sidgreaves v. Brewer, 49 L. J. Ch. 514; 15 Ch. D. 594. Land devised for a superstitious use goes to the heir. R. v. Portington, 3 Salk. 334; Crofts v. Evetts, Moore, 784. for masses Bequests for offering up masses for the souls of the dead Bequests are not illegal in Ireland. Commissioners of Charitable in Ireland. Donations v. Walsh, 7 Ir. Eq. 34; Read v. Hodgens, ib. 17; Brennan v. Brennan, I. R. 2 Eq. 321. Such bequests, however, though not illegal in Ireland, are not charitable, and are void if they tend to a perpetuity. Dillon v. Reilly, I. R. 10 Eq. 152; Kehoe v. Wilson, 7 L. R. Ir. 10; see A.-G. v. Delaney, I. R. 10 C. L. 104. By the Roman Catholic Charities Act, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 134, s. 1, it is in effect provided, that dispositions of Gifts for real or personal estate upon any lawful charitable trust in favour of Roman Catholics shall not be invalidated by reason that the same estate is subjected to a trust deemed to be superstitious, but the property may be apportioned, and a portion applied to the lawful charitable trusts declared by the donor, and the rest applied to charitable purposes for the benefit of Roman Catholics as the Court or the Charity Commissioners may think just. As to the application of the doctrine of superstitious uses to British Colonies, see Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Ching Neo, L. R. 6 P. C. 381, and the authorities there quoted. Gifts for the relief of aged, impotent, and poor people are enumerated as charitable by the statute 43 Eliz. c. 4. impotent, See Nash v. Morley, 5 B. 177; Thompson v. Corby, 27 B. the relief of aged, and poor people. Gifts to poor relations. 1. Of a lump sum imme diately distributable. 649. But none of these words are necessary to constitute a charitable gift: thus, a gift for the widows and orphans of a parish, or the widows and children of the seamen of Liverpool, is charitable. A.-G. v. Coombe, 2 S. & St. 93; Powell v. A.-G., 3 Mer. 48. A gift in favour of the poor does not include persons receiving parochial relief. A.-G. v. Price, 3 Atk. 109; Bishop of Hereford v. Adams, 7 Ves. 324; A.-G. v. Corporation of Exeter, 2 Russ. 47; 3 ib. 396; A.-G. v. Brandreth, 1 Y. & C. C. 200; A.-G. v. Bovill, 1 Ph. 762; A.-G. v. Blizard, 21 B. 233. On the question whether a gift to poor relations is charitable : 1. When the gift is of a lump sum immediately distributable, the cases are very unsatisfactory. a. In several cases it has been held that a gift to poor relations is to be confined to statutory next of kin, thus implying that the gift is not charitable, since, if it were no question of uncertainty could have arisen. Carr v. |