The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-02-16 00:00:00

SMITH'S "POOR KINDRED."

On Monday, in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Court
of Appeal, before Lords Justices James and Thesiger),
the cause of "the Attorney-General v. the Duke of Nor-
thumberland" was heard, and was an appeal from an order
of the Master of the Rolls of the Ist of December, 1877,
In reference to the distribution o the funds of " Smith's
(Poor Kiu) Charity" :—We take the following report of the
case from Tuesday's Times :

Henry Smith, a citizen and alderman of Loudon, by
his will of the 24th April, 1627, bequeathed a sum
of £l,OOO to be invested in land, "of the yearly
value of threescore pounds per annum at the
least," and distributed as therein mentioned "for
the use of the poor captives being slaves under
the Turkish pirates" and for their relief and ran-
som. The testator gave another £l,OOO to be laid out
in land of the same value "for the use and relief of
the poore,t of his kindred, such as were not able to
work for their living—viz., sick, aged, and impotent
persons, and such as could not maintain their own
charge." Later on in his will he said "that in the
bestowing and distributing of his estate and goods to
the poor to charitable uses it was according to his
intent and desire that those of his kindred who were
poor, aged, impotent, or any other way unable to help
themselves, should be chiefly preferred and respected."
At the foot of the will there was a memorandum, as
follows :

"Moreover, the said testator being asked which of his
kindred he meant and intended in and by those words, the
poorest of his kindred,' in the legacy of £l,OOO, bequeathed
in his will to be laid out and bestowed in the purchase of
lands of inheritance, of the value of £6O per annum, and the
rents and profits to be yearly paid unto them, &c., made
answer that his meaning was thereby the poorest of his
sisters' children, and their children, successively, or like in
effect."

The bequests of £l,OOO for the relief and ransom of
captives languishing in slavery and £l,OOO for the
testator's poor kindred were, after the testator's death,
laid out in the purchase of an estate of about eighty
acres, in the parishes of Kensington, Chelsea, and
St. Martin's-in-the-fields, London, which in 1772
produced £l5l per annum. Since 1723 no applica-
tion had been made on behalf of any " captives, ' and
the savings of that moiety had been invested in
South Sea Annuities, and accumulated. By an
Act passed in 1772, the trustees were enabled to
grant building leases of the property and (if no part of
the yearly interest, or of the £6O a year should be re-
quired for captives), to pay the whole interest and pro-
duce of the South Sea Stock (£7,530 and £1,628 15s. 4d.),
and of such £6O a year to and among the poor
kindred of the testator, anything in the will to the
contrary notwithstanding. The land has been gra-
dually built over and the rents have increased, from
£l5l a year in 1772, to upwards of £12,000 a year,
with a prospect of a very -large future increase from
the recent letting for building purposes of the Cadogan
and Hans place Estate,, which forms part of the pro-
perty. Meanwhile, the "Poor Smiths" have in-
creased and multiplied in the land. In 1700 there
were only four on the list of persons receiving bounty.
In 1772, there were 15; in 1800 there . were 100;
and in 1868 the number was 412, ranging from the
sixth to the tenth degree of great nephews and
nieces. Schemes for the administration of the
funds were settled in 1849 and in 1860, and in
consequence of the report in 1868 of Mr. Martin,
one of the Inspectors of the Charity Commia-
sion, a fresh scheme was under preparation. The
matter having been brought before the Master of
the Roils, in December last, on the preliminary ques-
tion, whether any and what portion of the income
could be appropriated for the benefit of any persons
not being kindred of the founder, his Lordship held
that the income of the one moiety representing the be-
quest to the poor kindred and of the South Sea
Annuities, and the £6O a year (as a definite sum) were
primarily applicable for the relief of those of the
testator's poor kindred coming within the definition in
his will, and that, subject thereto, the whole income
of the trust estate was applicable to general charit-
able purposes. From this decision the representatives
of the poor kindred had appealed.
Mr. Chitty, Q.C., and Mr. E. Macnaghten for the
appellants; Mr. Davey, Q.C., and Mr. Vaughan
Hawkins for the Attorney-General; Mr. Bagshawe,
Q.C., and Mr. W. Barber for the trustees.

Lord Justice James was unable to adopt the con-
struction placed by the Master of the Rolls upon the
Act of 1772. What the testator directed by his will
was that £l,OOO should be taken and laid out in the
purchase of land which would produce at least M a
year, and then the rents and profits of the land pur-
chased—not the mere sum of £l5O a year which never
had any existence as a distinct and definite sum given
—were to be applied for the benefit of poor captives in
slavery. That being so the trustees purchased an
estate, to one moiety of which each charity (the poor
kindred and the captives) became entitled as tenants in
common. Each charity, theYefore, had a moiety of the
estate and a moiety of the rents and profits. Then, corning
to the Act of 1772, the operative words of enactment
were that, after applying the yearly interest of the
South Sea Stock purchased out of the accumulated
savings, or so much thereof ad should be required, for
the relief and ransom of poor captives, the trustees
should pay and distribute all the residue of the South
Sea Stock, and also of the "said yearly sum of £6O
annually arising out of the said estate" which should
remain unapplied to the use above-mentioned to and
among the poor kindred of the testator. If no part of
the yearly interest and produce of the stock, or of the
£6O a year, should be required for the use of the
captives, then the trustees were to pay the whole inte-
rest and produce of the stock and of such k.',60 a year to
the poor kindred. He was of opinion, therefore, that
this Act made a new gift to the poor kindred of the
Ait) a year, which really was the one moiety of the
trust estate which belonged to this particular charity.
To what extent it might be necessary to apply to Par-
liament for an alteration of the scheme, or how this
large increase of income was to be applied was not
now before their lordships. All they determined was
that the whole moiety applicable to the poor captives
and no longer required for that purpose was by the
Act of 1772 given to the poor kindred. The order of
the Master of the Rolls would be varied by omitting
therefrom so much as limited the income of the pro-
perty purchased with the captives' £l,OOO, applicable
for the benefit of the poor kin of the testator to M a
year. The appellants would be allowed their oosts.

THE NAVY ESTlMATES.—lzipreptaing the estimates
for the Navy for the financial year upon which we
are about to enter, the calculations have mainly been
based upon the nu.mbers of officers and seamen
allowed and provided for in the present financial
year (says the Whitehall Review). It may therefore be
assumed that no additional expenditure of any im-
portance will be required by the personnel, but that
any increase asked for will be under the head of ship
budding. That a large sum will be required for this
purpose seems to be undoubted, as there are now so
very few ships under construction, either at the dock-
yards or at the yards of private firms. It is probable
that it will be thought advisable to make some im-
portant provision for laying down new ships in the
prouarnme of work to be carried out duriug 1878-9 at
th 9 RoYal dcckyardn,