The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-09-09
Resume of the Attack on the Famous
Document Made Before the Circuit
Court in NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Story Telling the Reason Why st.
Leo's Battalion of the West Side
Didn't Get "the Handsomest Hall
and Library in This Region"


points of the plaintiffs and was fol-
lowed by Colonel George H. Starr, who
argued these points at length. EX-
Attorney General ii. w. Palmer. City
Solicitor Ward, of winchester, and
Major Holmes Conrad, associate coun-
sci FOR the city of Winchester, pre-
sented the defense The arguments
consumed two whole days. Judge
Acneson in 10 way gave any intima-
tion of his impressions of the case by
any comments or questions. He said
he hoped to give his adjudication in
side of three months.
The main contention of the claimants
was that the City of Winchester was
not capable under the laws of Virginia
and provisions of its charter of taking
and administering the trust, created
by the residuary clause of the will
which reads that the residue of his es.
tate shall be invested for twenty years
and that at the end of that time the
income shall be expended for "the
erection of school houses for the edu-
cation Of the poor"
LAW IN VIRGINIA.
In Virginia, unlike in many states.
there is no doctrine of charitable uses,
or in other words. the charters of mu-
nicipal corporations have not been eX-
parded 50 that they can become
trusts for charitable uses"
Incidentally, it might be remarked
the Virginia Legislature adopted the
doctrine of charitable uses' in 1896
but as no law can be retroactive it
does not cover the present case. 1t is
nI Al l,1,ic ccin N
the part Of the Virginia legislators
that Winchester was incapable of ex-
erciSing such trust, as it was un-
doubtedly the Handley bequcst that
pointed out the inadequacy of their
laws in this regard.
it is further contended that the pur-
poses of the trust are not germane to
the objects of the corporation of the
City of Winchester. The city has moth
ing to do with the education of the
poor and if it undertook to carry out
the behests of the trust it would be
overstepping the authority of it's char
ter
The residuary clause itself is held to
be void and abortive. because there is
an incurable uncertainty as to pur-
poses or objects of the trust; also as to
the practica bilty of erecting school
houses as directed: also as to what
classes of persons are intended as bene-
ficiaries.
The residuary clause, the plaintiffs
argued. admits of several distinct con-
struCtiOns no one of which seems rea-
sonable, but any one of which seems az
reasonable as any other; and for that
reason the purposes and beneficaries
intended are so vague and uncertain
that no court can determine what the
testator intended. What makes this
the more embarrassing is a clause of
the will which reads: Il do hereby de-
clare that all of the several bequests
made in this, my will, are made upon
the express condition that none of the
moneys shall be applied to
any other purpose whatsoever than
those specially mentioned and herein
appointed"
COURT PREVENTED.
This, it was held, prevents the court
from giving the will any construction
other than that which the language OF
the items warrants.
1t is impossible to determine whether
the testator intended that the whole of
the income of the residuary estate was
to be applied solely to the erection of
school houses, or whether a portion
was to be used to buy lands and an
other portion to maintain the schools
In providing for the library. Handley
| specifically stated that only $3.50 of the
bequest of $250,000 should be applied tc
| the erection of the library building.
No provision being made for the land
on which to erect the school houses
there is no certainty that the trust will
ever be carried out; in fact, it is as
! good as certain that it will never DE
carried out if the buildings have tC
wait upon some third party furnishino
| the land and the means of maintaining
| the schools.
The attempt to carry out the trust
| it was argued, would prove abortive
as the conditions forbid the citv o.
| Winchester from applying any part %
| the gift "to any other purpose what,
soever than those specially mentioned
and the only purposes mentioned arr
"the erection of school houses for tht
education of the poor"
The phrase for the education of thu
poor" was given no little attention by
the counsel for the plaintiffs. In itself
ii was contended, ii was sufficient t,
| invalidate the residuary clause of tn
WILL because of its uncertainty anC
| vagueness.
1t was pointed out that the fund wa
| not for the education of the poor o
| Winchester only; nor for the poor o
the world at large; nor for poor chill
dren. The only certainty about tn
clause is that no rich person could at
tend the schools.
WHO IS TO DETERMINE?
who" the question was asked, 81
| to determine who the poor are?
There is no limitation expressed or i'm
piled and the city of Winchester 1
thereby entrusted with the education
Of the poor of the world task it 4
certainly not authorized to undeIta
under the terms of it's charter.
1t was argued that ii would he un
reasonable To interpret the clause t,
mean that the fund was to be apple,
TO the erection of school houses 70
the poor of winchester. There are les
than 5000 inhabitants in the city AM
the total amount of money eXpende,
yearly for both the education of tn
rich and poor of the city is $1,000.
is not reasonable to suppose then tina
the $50 900 income year that the funt
will provide was intended to be apple,
| h, b,, nj Gnhnnl hpteac q,