The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-24 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TO TESTATORS.

In the Vice Chancellor's Court, the cause of "In re Briscoe's
Trust " has been heard, and the case shows how important
it is tor a testst or who makes • bequest to a charity to de-
scribe accurately the object of his bounty.

The late Mr. John Ivatt Briscoe, who was formerly
M.l'. for West Surrey, bequeathed by his will a legacy
of £l,OOO 'to the Victoria Hospital." This legacy
was claimed by two hospitals, the City of London
Hospital for Diseases of the Chest, which is situate at
Victoria-park, and the Victoria Hospital for Sick
Children, which is situate at Gough-house, Queen's-
road, West Chelsea. The executors paid the legacy
into court, and the City of London Hospital now pai.
tioned to have it paid out to them. Evidence was pro-
duced on the part of the City of London Hospital to show
that while the testator was a subscriber to, and a life
governor of that hospital, and took a great interest in its
concerns, he was entirely unconnected with the Victoria
Hcspital for Sick Children ; and, moreover, that from
being situated in Victoria-park the City of London
Hospital was known and frequently spoken of as the
Victoria Hospital, or the Victoria-park Hospital, and
that letters were often addressed to it and subscrip-
tions paid to it under those names. On the part of the
Victoria Hospital for Sick Children it was contended
that the words "for sick children" did not in point of
fact firm any real part of its name, which actually was
the Victoria Hospital, and that thus, there being a
charity, and one charity only, completely answering
the description in the will, upon the authority of
" Kilvort's Trusts," L.R. 12, 29, 183, and other cases,
parol evidence was not admissable to explain the gift,
and the charity answering the description must take
the legacy.
The Vice-Chancellor said that if the description in
the will of the charity which was to take was complete
and unequivocal, then the rule against the admission of
parol evidence must prevail. For instance, if the tes-
tator here had said "the Victoria Hospital for Sick
Chil.ren," there would have been no doubt. The
description, however, was more general--the "Vic-
toria Hospital " merely, which might mean either of
those two hospitals; and his Honour was bound to
, ascertain what was in the testator's mind, and as far
as possible to carry his intentions into effect. Now
the evidence showed that while the testator had
been for twenty years a supporter and was a life
' governor of one of these hospitals he never had been
, connected with and was an entire stranger to the
other. Therefore in making his will he would not, ac-
cording to all human probability, give the go-by to the
hospital in which he had taken so strong au interest
and give &large legacy to one he knew nothing about.
Both hospitals were doubtless most deserving institu-
tions, but the Court would presume benevolent inten-
tions on the part of the testator towards that with
which he was connected, and his Hononr came to the
conclusion that the testator intended to give this
legacy to the City of London Hospital at Victoria-
park, and that he had sufficiently described that hos-
pital. The costs of all parties would be paid out of
the fund.