The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-02-24
The BsrthroP Will Case.
6UPJRNE COURT-0RNERAL TBRM.

The Barthrop Will Case.
SUZANNE cOURT-0ENERAL r8Rh.
Before Hon. judges Davies, Cerke and Sutherland
John II. Beekysen, Administrator Appellant, rs the
People of the State Of Ne,o York and others, Respondents.
The People Of ne State of Neo York, ArysIont, John
p. Beekman, Administrator dc. and others, Respondents
Thomas Beehman, administrator, DC, Appcson John
r. Beekmdn, Ad'ninistrer and others Respondents.
complaint in the original case was led by JOHN Beck
man. administrator, with the will of William Barthrop,
deceased TO procure construction Of the last will and
testament said Barthrop The defendant Mary Bonsor
is sister Of the tesator and the defendants, Mary Bon
cor, Samuel Bonsor, Alexander Bonsor Henry Bonsor
Eeansr Potts and Ara Gilson the children o. said
Mary P0nsor The defendant, Thomas Beekman, ID the
administrator &c of Anna Barthrop, deceased who
the widow of the tesat0r The remaining defendant is
the people Of the State Of New YORK. who appear by their
Attorney General The facts in the undsputed The
children of Mrs. Bonsor, who living made parties
as claiming the benefits OF provision in the first codio OF
the will for the purchase OF farm which is in the follow
ing words -" will that my executors purchase farm in
# my sister, Mary Bonsor, Of Not,nsham in England
not exceeding six thousand dollars sylum and tits
my wish they come and occupy the same especially my
ephew Henry but my executors must have full power
the Same for fifteen years. for the benefit of all my
nephews and nieces they think tit fifteen
he avails among them their heirs and survivors, as
hey may think just and any Of my nephe vs. and nleces
make for their mutual benefit will that they receive no
art thereof" The other parties Interested either as
ext of kin in the distribution OF the portion Of the estate
tempted be beaueathed TO various purposes of bene
violence, in the application OF such portion TO such pur
loses.
Of the will in this respect the judgment appealed from
ard the points presented all the provisions Of the will
upon the subject are quoted. The will bears date the
OH October 1857 and after making several devises and
bequests proceeds rs foilows-"All the residue and
remainder of worldly estate and effects except what
In in
Philadelphia and TO the Society New York, for the Re-
lief Of Taoresses and Seamsresses, to the Female AS
Respectable Aged ard INDECENT Females Of New York"
He subsequently reyokes these bequests and TO
These directions again revoked by codic made
the 18th October 1885, and provision made as follcws
do hereby revoke the esaces given in my viii and in the
codc thereto to several societies in New York city and
in the city Of Philadelphia AS to the rest and residue
and remainder of estate including the capital prn
cpa be apart produce the annuity my
Mary ae me nened In my will which shall thereof
her death and after fret satisfying the several egaces
and requests and provisions IN my WILL and any OF the
cOdcs thereto except those which have by this any
other codc revoked dispose thereof before any money
is appropriated the establishment of a dspensary
provided Tor IN one OF the c0oCs 70 cy WILL as follows,
that is to say"
Exceptions were taken by each of the parties portions
Of the Judgment of the Court below and the rulings Of
the Justice the trial. and bills of exceptions prepared
and settled Each of the parties appeal from the whole
some part OF the judgment
PoINTs-The cevse and bequest in the codicil Of May
II 1885, for the building and maintenance OF dspensary
s void 1t would be void at common law for vagueness
and uncertainty To the validity of every disposition as,
well of personal estate, requisite there
be definite Subject well "object," and uncertain
y in either of these particulars fatal The subject Of
devise bequest is the estate or interest disposed Of
the objeet is the person persons who to be bene
fitted by the devise bequest There specific de-
wise bequest of the residue Of the estate portion
thereof ony for the purpose OF dispensary No
trustees named appointed 10 take the
for the trust No limits are set to the funds
TO be appro lated 10 the object The persons who TO
be the benehcaries Of the trust utterly uncertain No
place AIMED where the dspensary is TO be established
The directions In the will for the establishment of dis
pebsay made void by the provisions OF the Revised
Statutes forbddng Accommodations of the and profits
OF real estate of of personal property ex
cept certain The devise direction TO the
cutors in the first codc TO purchase farm in trust for
the benefit Of the nephews and neces OF the or to
be held for een for occupation by Them and then
TO be Sold and the avs apporoned among the nephews
and neces their heirs and survivors, the executors
might think tit, being void the money apart for this
purpoee should have been ds buted to the next Of kin
administrator, John p Beekman, TO referee, to ascer
tain whether they had been settled, audited and al
lowed in due manner by the Surrogate Of Columbia
county. The accounting in due form WAS al
legged in the complaint expressly admitted in
the Of the Bonsors, the parties immediately
rested, and proof OF waived by the stipulation of the
Attorney General who had put in a general answer-no
question in regard thereto could have arisen the trial
The Court holding that under the discretion Icon
ferreo the last clause OF the last codc OF the WILL
giving u power the dsposton Of the residue OF the
estate so that the same shall be applied to objects OF
charity, the administrator limited his selection 70
societies. and could not bestow the tesators charity
individual, matter how deserving not IL he
the testaors aged and INDECENT sister widow
If the trusts valid, and be enforced their
ton devolves upon the administrator with the will
annexed The remuneration OF the named in
the will and the appointment Of the administrator forever
preciudes the executors PANIED in the will from inter
neddpg with the personal estate OF the testaor.
The courts Of this State have jurisdiction by virtue of
which estate that has passed TO heirs a law Of
kin by reason OF decedent, owners neglect failure
TO make legal disposition Of H. be wrested from such
heirs or next OF kin and applied 10 public charity The
equitable jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court Of this State
and of the supreme Court OF the United States
sve with the ordinary judicial power Of the English Court
Of Chsnoery, which only adequate TO uphold and enforce
such trus,s for charity would have been valid II duly
created for any other legal purpose This jurisdiction
plainly nad quate 10 sutan the devses and bequests FOR
n dispepsary and for charitable purposes, which
sought 10 he made by the will In question, The Judgment
In this should be reversed and judgment entered
declaring void the provisions Of the will and codcls fer
the purchase OF farm tor tho establishment OF o dspen.
cary and for charity and distributing TO the next of kin
the estate not specifically bequeathed.
Argument Is being heard