Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-11-12
Continued from page 3.
SUPREME COURT.

true intention OF the donor. His in-
iention should DO tho aim OF the court.
THE difference between the crown
en' the court IL this: Tho court II
governed by known Judicial rules Of
Interpretation; the crown IN governed
by Its own good VIII anu pleasure In
drducing or imparting such inter-
ton. as IL secs ut. . Perry on Trusts,
Sec 721.
In discussing the doctrine Of cy pres
In It's opinion IN the case VI Mnoro's
Heirs VS.. AIoore's Devisocp, 4 Dana,
8oi, alter referring TO tho prerogative
OF the king as parcHs pafitdo IA 10 gifts
To charitable uses, the court said: Sand
this regal prerogs alive, with some other
curative powers Inherent Ia the
crown. wns delegated To- tho Chnncel-
Tor OF England Ia his ordinary minis.
terial capacity M tho keeper OF the
great seal and Official organ Of the
King" And then after remarking
that we have no such officer In the
United States Ms the Chancellor VI
England; that our chancoty courts
have no other jurisdiction than that OF
courts OF equity aud no other power
than that wnich IL judicial or regulated
by law, said iurthvr TINT eve do not
admit that the commonwealth, rs
paroas patyiU eau rightiully utter
fere unless there be an e.chcai TO her;
aud then she may become absolute anu
beneficial owner. Rights here are
reg ulsted by law.n awe are
eat led that the oy pres Il, ctrine
OF England II not, or shouts not
be judicial doctrine, except
In Vno Kind OF case; anu that Is, where
there 10 All available charity 10 an
identified or ascertainnble object, and
aparticular mole, Inadequate, illegal
or inappropriate, or which happens 10
iail has been prescribed.
In such d caso court OF equity may
substitute Or sanction ANY other mode
tnat may be lawful and suitable M III
eti.cluate the declared intention OF the
donor, and not arbitrarily aud In the
dark, presumlng On mis- motives or
wlshes, declare an object for him. A
curt may act jIdicially us long as IL
.tiectuatos the lawful Intention OF the
donor. hut II does not act jud clally
when II applies his bounty to specific
object Of charity, selected by It,
self, merely because he had dedi-
Gated It TO charity generally, OF
TO specified purpose which cannot be
eiiectuated; for the court cannot know
or decide that he would have been
willing that 1t should he applied to the
object TO which the Judge, In the plen-
itude OF his unregulRteu discretion aud
peculiar tbencvolence has seen III Il
decree its appropriation, whereby he,
and not the donor, In effect anu az Lust,
creates the charity"
srhis doctrine was Ie.aiilrmed In Curl
ing's Admrs VI, CurlIug's Heirs, s
Dana, 3s, the curt holding thai
properly tax dedicated by the donor Il
u certain charity could not be diverted
or appointed by the court to any
other object, and II property i
devised In such general term
that II may be devoted 4
one or more OF several charities
1t cannot be devoted by tho court Il
any object not embraced in such gener
oil terms, and said that by doing so tn,
court might apply the charity to al
object which the donor did not inteDt
y and To which he never would hav
devoted II. Gilman ct al. Va. Hamil
ton OF al., 10 Ills, 225, holds that IN
court cannot change tho charity TO an,
tb,ect not Intended by the donor.