Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-12

\
devoted 10 general educational pur
poses as not, except that the donor:
wishes and intentions ought 10 b
respected; although some part may
be an Illegal use, whatever use i
legal Il should be devoted TO, oil
carry out the intention for which II
was originally given. I must hurry
on for do not wish to detain you
but | want 90 refer 10 one or two
authorities. i do not intend to read
books, but / made extracts In or
der TO direct the attention Of the
committee, u they feel disposed
To investigate this subject, and
give some prominent authorities,
for the books are full Of them,
although this Is a question that does
not often come up.
In the ease Of Jackson against
PHILLIPS, II Allen, ga, Judge Gray
says:
By tie law o. the commonwealth and By
the law % England gifts % charitable use.
/ were highly favored and Will be most I b.
orally Consgrucd IN order to accomplish the
intent and purposes o; the donor. and
| trusts waich can not be upheld IN ordinary
! eases Tor various reasons viii be cztAblis he'd
and carried into eject when created %
support gIft 10 charitable Use.
He says further:
You can make them tnalienabIe aud per-
/ petuai. which cannot be dore By means q
against perpetuiles-
Judge Story, in his work on
Equity Jurisprudence, says, sec
/ ton ll56.
But this sensible distinction nov pre-
. Fail- that the courts will not decree the
| execution % the trHsts Of charity IN a
manner q rcrrut from that intended, eN-
| rept - Jar a. it = seen that the intention
can not bc literally executed. In that ease
another mode Will be adopted consistent
l with t&e general Intention % execute .. al
though not In the mode et IN substance.
In the ease OF the Attorney Gene
raj against Bulbee, . Nesey, Jr., the
master Of the Rolls said, quoting
with approval a former decision Of
the court:
a tcstaior directed bread 10 he distri-
I butcd % the poor persons attending divine
service and chanting HE version Of the
/ psalms.
These psalms were unauthorized
by law, 10 this part Of the beIuest
mus; fail. but the distribution of
bread was decreed 20 be carried out.
The general object d not to De effected Il
Z . can m any other way be attained.
In the case Of Jackson against
Phillips, 10 which have referred,
the cOur; says, referring 10 n num-
Der Of authorities on this point:
The court Of equity IN the exercise % L.
I Jurisdiction applies the trust A. near 10 the
icstat0r's particular directions A. possible
10 carry out his Senerai charitable intent
There j. one Of the cases Of st.
Louis. Under the Mullanphy will
there was a bequeSt for the benefit Of
/ poor immigranIs. The SupremeCourt
held il was a trust fund, that il WAS
a charitable use, anu that the court
should find out who were the poor
Immigrants 10 which this fund must
be devoted.
And ia resaui TO the doctrine Of
pCTcHs pdtTiT, which has been iu-
vOked here, ''the power Of the king
n pCsTcHs I1ItTIT To dispose Of prop
crty by his sign manual when the
objects are illegal or indefinite, -
Judge Gray says:
70 b. dIf.ruft o. see how o could D. held
O. east Iu = republic % which charitable
hcIur-i- have never been forfeited Co the
use ur subuitted o. disposition By the Gov
crumeat because they arc supersu;s0Es or
illegal
Because they are illegal they do
not belong u the Government, but
tlsc Government takes possession Of
them n trustee for some other
charitable purpose which Is legal.
In the case % Howard agaius; the
Peace Society 20 Maine, page IS.
the court says:
The general provisions % the statutes %
80 Elizabeth are IN force IN this state ard
incorporated tutp our chanrery iurisuFud-
curr. ENtriu-Ir evidence j. admIs-ihIe 10
ai1 in givir- construction 90 devices or
ucIuCsi- AMI tu show what PROPERTY was N.
tended % De devised and what person vas
intended 90 take Page sr-.
Now that Is what We see here.
There was no evidence before the
Supreme Court in regard % these
other charities, all that was before
the court was that the property was
devoted b some charitable uses. 1t.
was given b the Church and was
disposed Of in that way. The
Church organization A. a corpora-
ton has been dissolved and il cannot
hold il under that decision Of the
court The Government take pos
session Of u as trustee; then Il i the
duty Of the Government. We say. 10
de' Ote II 10 the charitable purposes
for which il was intended, and We
may Introduce outside testimony
fer the purpose OF showing what
that was. 10 was not done in this
case. hut I will say to the court
what | propose 10 10. This question
= LEFT open with the Supreme
Court. propose 10 apply 10 the
supreme Court at the next session
for an Orier upon the supreme court
OF the Territory OF Utah 20 permit
these persons 10 file a bill Of review
10y which they can set out the facts
and have them adjudiclted.
Now, ! take il, the Supreme
Court would not entertain a bill OF
review. and in fact il has been de-
cide'i that the supreme Court will
not entertain a bill Of review. IL
will order an inferior court. II Il
thinks proper, II proper showing is
maize before the Supreme Court, 10
n bill Gf review for the
purpose Of taking testimony. 4 bill |
of review does no. raise any question
u law at all; il i something like a I
motion for 4 new trial in an action
n law, except Il raises no QUESTION I
lI law. 10 does not attack the /
Of the judgment made hy /.
The court upon n question Of law,
bat for some equitable reason. or
upon the discovery Of new testimony,
i will authorize n till Of review 10 I
permit the party 10 come in and I
show what he avers to be true. 1 |
have no idea the Supreme Court /
Will entertain a bill Of review, but I /
10 not doubt for n moment that they I
would entertain aH application for I
IN orieT, and wOuli make an orler .
lpOn the supreme court Of the Terri /
DRY Of Utah, which has original
jurisdiction in this case, and Permit /
.hese parties to file hill Of review
lnd -et out these facts so as 10 show
he charitable objects 10 which this
und was intended 10 be devoted. 10
las been practically devoted for
-ears and yeaus 20 these purposes,
md IL Will therefore be carrying out
he charitable purposes for which
hese gifts were male, Irrespective
4 the Church, for them to be put in
o the hands Of trustees 10 lie
ppOiutei 10y the court, but
ristces who arc not hostile trustees.
D be managed for the charitable
uTIoses for which il was INTENDED,
y persons friendly to the aSs0cia-
ion and 10 the object aud purposes
{ the donation.
Now it cannot be supposed for n
lsmeIt that members Of the Nor a.,
lon Church, when they paid their
thes from time 10 time, that they