Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-11-12
@45 & ~ WEST, FIRST SOUTH STREET. e

In City 81 Philadelphia Va. Giraris
Heirs, IS u. 81. y, the court said ~ a
all vifis for charitable uses the law
makesa very clear distinction between
those parts OF "a writing conveying
them, which declares that the gift nnd
Its purposes and those which direct the
mode OF Its distribution
La tho same opinion tho court
further said, "And this II the doctrine
Of cy pres, 70 lar as Il has been ex-
pressly adopted by us. Not the doc.
trine 'grossly revolving to the public
sense OF iuatice" Il Watts, 1907 aud
"carricd to the extravagant length that
II was formerly In England az y. * II,
93) by which an unlawful ami entirely
Indefinite charity WINS transformed by
tho court or the crown Into one that
was lawful and definite, though not at
all intended 10y the donor or testator,
But a reasonable doctrine OF which n
well defined charity, or ono where the
means OF deiinitlOn are given, may O
enforced In favor OF the general Intent,
even whore the mode or means pro.
vided by the donor fail by reason OF
their inadequsoy or unlawiulness."
From these authorities We may DO.
duco tho general rule that courts VI
equity in the exercise OF their ordinary
Jurisdiction cannot devote any portion
OF q fund dedicated 10 charitable uses 10
any object not contemplated by The
donor; that when property In given to
u class OF objects In general terms anu
also directed TO be applied TO one OF
them In special terms, II Its application
to that one becomes unlawfui or im-
practicable the doctrine OF cy pres au.
thotiaes the court 10 devote IL to one OF
more of those embraced in the general
intent most analogous to the one
| specially named, That the general in'
tent may not he expressed IN explicit
terms n the devise or dedication III the
| light OF the circumstances authOrlg,
the court to infer that such was the
donors wish In that event. The same
rules apply when the charity 10 tn,
result OF contributions by large num-
Der OF people.
1t IL plain from tho evidence befor,
us that the members OF the Church O
jesus Christ OF Lattcr.day Saints con
tributei the fund In dispute, expecting
and Wishing IL to bs applied by tn,
Fret Presidency 10 Church purposes
10 objects promoted by the Church
| We cannot lind from the evidence be
fore us that the Mormon people whI
contributed this fund intended or ex
pected the fund or any part OF II woulL
bo appropriated to the support OF tn,
common schools Of the Territory. IL
common with non Mormons tho Latter
day Saints nre taxed 10 maintain tn,
public schools, and 10 take the money
that they contributed for Churcu pur
poses and devoted also to their supper
would bo unequal and unjust.
Were 1t amply matter OF dlscre
ton with US we would not be dispose,
to assume superior and peculiar wisdom
ard say to these people That we vii
de- OF, the contributions made by yol
tr Church purposes to purpose tina
y,u did not Intend Ito the supper
Ot tue common schools, because W,
think that more worthy object. w,
cannot adopt the scheme presented 10y
the plaintiff and reported by ia,
Master.
We Will now consider tho scheme 70
the application Of this fund presented
by the defendants. Their plal
would vest this property In Ia,
First Presidency OF the Church
now consisting OF Wiliord Wood
run, Its President, and Georg,
q. Cannon and Joseph Il. Smith, hi
counselors, and their SUCCESSORS II
office In trust, to apply the proceed