The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-02-15

the Court of Chancsry seizss and keeps H. because Il
spower to execute IT, There il the power 10 receive
ecute and part particle Of these powers be
struck out OF the law It stands and leave any law u
chaAties competent TO execute the trust.
Another point to be observed upon s-there no
system Of equity law in force in the time
OF sr GiFards DEATH This is distinct thing from
Poraion with charity grant Here is legal power Of
any KIM conferred on the Corporation of Philadelphia by
Mr.. Gin rds will But again-where is the visitatorai
power, the charity stands p there any thing in the
will providing for it. in the law? Is it in the govern
ment Of Pennsylvania There must be at tribunal in Phi
ladcpha that every day can order its mandate to those
trustees For there is no provision for visitors. And
what is to be done if the city to this trust
Does the charity fail What is ordinarily the course in
such case The Court takes the whole charity In its
own hands and frames system carry out But there
was law in Pennsylvania at the time that Mr. Grard
swer may please your honor, to say that these
could not have happened. contend It - possible
to all the contingencies that occur . You
must go back then to the time Of Mr.. Grards death
GO sss nsrs was system o. "S keen from
ing the heirs at Laws fthere not such system
existing there At that time s M MAKE gone ony q M
ent disposition oft You must take all the parts Of the
Charyaw Pennsylvania as they then existedyo can.
take the whole system in all its parts and If at that
precise time there was such system Of Charity Law
listing Pennsy that could take this trust and
cutei then. Not what it do And unless you
find that there was tribunal existing there at that time
established by the Law Of Pennsylvania that could
cute all and every part Of this charity by ITSELF this
depise is void and the property has gone to the heirs
law. and next Of kin In England there apower in the
Court OF Equity to take and execute the whole de-
voived in these trusts But unless it can be shown
that there was system of adjudicature existent in
all the ssencies looked to and provded for by the cA itself
then the devise is void and the charity can't stand
that viii put it again WAS there court Of udica
ure existing in the State Of Pennsylvania at that time
il all the agencies, contemplated by the WILL had been
removed-had failed That is the question Because If
there was not, the devise null and void The Legisla-
ture of Pennsylvania pass laws to meet future
but this right and title was fixed at the time Of the death Of
Stephen Grard And if yon could not deprive the devil
and heirs of it then why they never can be deprived
oft And the opposite side may it please the Court must
show this armatiyely They must show armativcy that
at the time Of Grards death there system oil laws
quite as broad the system Of charities established by the
statutes Of Elizabeth in England existing in
England, except the procedure by commission as
broad as the statutes of Elizabeth (which common law
must be the common law Of Pennsylvania; they must
show that there was then customary law in Pennsyl
vaniaits our common law broad either of these
They must show this armativcly before they make
out that there then system Of law in Pennsylv ana
competent to execute this trust.
Now in order to what the law of Pennsylvania
lc us look at the whole law fixed by the decisions of
the Supreme Court of that State. We arn them by
these decisions that the AID Of Elizabeth not then in
judges ia 1885, 18th Sargent RawIe, the case Of Whit
man against Lex; and lstWatts p 225
The "a proposition is that chart able donations that
ore uncertain and intended to be in perpetuiy shall not
be sustained under the English common law This ia al
rncd by the same cases and by the Of the Methodist
Church against Kingdom often before cited And these
depending entirely the statutes Of Elizabeth the point
to be observed is this the Judges of Pennsyvania insist
that such power derived from the common law of
England in force before those statutes.
Tae I'd proposition isThe principles of the 43d Of Eli
zabeh being to extent incorporated with the law Of
Pennsylvania the question is what extent Now we
fad that manyof the principles of the statute Of Elizabeth
those that are absolutely necessary for the execution Of
charitable trusts rejected by the decisions of these
judges The courts of Pennsylvania renounce all the
doctrines of cy pres see the Sd Wharton p 477-the
case OF Woolniers Estate.
Mr. Webster then referred the Court to case that was
tried in the Court OF Common Pleas Dauphin County
Penus lvania that tried in 1927 and which not hav
ing been yet carried to the Supreme Court has not found
its way uto the hooks 1t was the case of Freys heirs
against Christian Spade. and related to the guardianship
Of two orphan children in which the doctrines of Gu pres
were involved. and decided upon.
Mr.. WEBsrsR.-From all these decisions then, as to
what the law the whole law in Pennsylvania on the
subject Of charitable trusts at the time Of Mr. Grards
DEATH find that there adjudication-no system
Of Law that could take this pr0perty-and either hold it
and execute the trust prevent it from descending the
heirs and Of kin. We also find that donations or
devise that are opposed to the public policy of the state
r 1t hos been said the other side that the statutes of
Mortman not in force in Penn but if take the de-
csions Of the Supreme Court OF that State
to the conclusion that the statutes Of Morman and
in force in Pennsylvania at this time read upon the
preanple of the act Of 1888. And in this find power
Of modelling this charity if it is CLARIFYING power
of vistaion and laws by which the Courts cothe
themselves with any such power. The question then is
was there law which could erect itself into tribunal
in the whole State Of Pennsylvania for the purposes OF
gulafing this charity answer most emphatically that
there was not
STEAMBOAT SUNK.-The Louisville Journal, of
the Goth u says -" We understand that the steamboat
ve loaded with salt whskey and empty barrels struck
floating log and SUNK ten miles below Madison II is
saathat she had no her policy having expired
few days before the accident She is said to be total
loss. One deck passenger droWned.b