Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-11-12

matter how. the manner being altogether
indifferent, tho former will not DO prelu-
diced by It's connection with the latter"
Boyce's Law OF Trusts,p. 232.
There IN English authority entitled to
great weight, to the effect that II a testa-
tor gives one charitable fund TO two or
more objects In definite proportions and
one falls, tho other objects that have not
failed may DO substituted for tho one that
has and tho 0nilro fund may DO devoted
To them, unless the terms OF tho will OK
cludo such an application.
In the case Of Attorney General vs..
Ironmongers' Company, English Chan
ceiy Reports. 5is, Lord Chancellor
Btowghnin snid, "When u tos,ator gives
ono charitable iund 10 three several classes
OF objects, unless he excludes by most
express provisions the application OF one
portion TO tho purpose 10 which the others
are destined, II is clear that the court
may thus execute his Intention in tho
event Of an impossiblity OF applying
that portion TO lIs original destn itlon."
The character OF charity IL impressed
on tho whole fund; there Is good
sonso In pTosuming that, had tho
tostator known that one obioct was to
fail he would have given Its appropriate
fund to tho Increase Of the funds destined
TO tho objects OF His bounty; and there II
| convenience In acting ~ no would him
self have done. This Ia tho foundation
OF tho doctrine Of cy pres" This case
was also before tho court when Gotten
ham was Lord Chancellor, and In con-
sidcrinH tho rulo OF construction In such
cases he said.
ut Il obviously truo that II several
charities DO named In Will and one fail
Tor want OF objects, ono OF the others may
be found TO be- cg pres to that which has
JAILED; and II so, its being approved by
ho testsior ought 10 10 an additional re-
commentator; but such other charity
ought not, rs | conceive, TO DO preferred
TO some othor moro nearly resembling
that which has failed"
| In such case the weight OF authority
| In this country, as we think, Is that the
amount specially directed to be applied to
the object that tails will DO devoted to any
other whether expressly named In the
will or dedication or not 80 named, II tho
terms OF the will or dedication, In the
light VI tho circumstances, authorize tho
court TO infor that such an application Il
within tho general intent OF the testator
or donor,
But tho case OF Attorney Gonoral vs.
The lronmongers' Company IN not analo-
| gous TO tho One in hand. In that tho
trustee was directed TO apply one half of
the estate 10 one object and tho other
half TO two other objects in equal
| proportions, so TINT II was necessary to
apply tho portion which the toslator had
| expressly devoted TO tho object that
failed 10 other objects; IL was necessary
To substitute another or other objects.
tAppoars from the evidence before us
that the contributions to tho fund in con-
trovorsy were made with the understand
Ing that they should be- applied to church
purposes, but that II was optional with
tho First Presidency 20 which object, and
II to more than one, the amount to each.
Tho donations wore to all or any ~ those
church officers might determine, and the
court is asked to limit tho application to
two church purposes that arc lawful.
We have no doubt that this court In the
exercise OF it, ordinary chancery turis-
dlction may limit the application OF this
fund TO the lawful purposes.
Defondanps solicitors also insist that
tho report OF the master and accompany.
ing evidence show that tho church
abandoned tho practice OF polygamy 10y
tho means OF, and In obedience TO the
manifesto Of its President, and resolu
ton OF its general conference adopted or
the 9Th Of October. 1890.
In that manifesto, which Is In evidence
the following language Is found:
eve arc not teaching polygamy OF
plural marriage or permitting any persor
To enter upon It's practice lnasmucl
az laws have boon enacted by con
gress iorbiddlng plural marriages
which laws have been pronounced