New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-10
GERRY SOCIETY WINS.
DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
IN ITS FAVOR.
THE EFFECT IS TO REMOVE THE SOCIETY
FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE
STATE BOARD OF CHARITIES


STATE BOARD OF CHARITIES
Albany, Jan. 9-The Court OF Appeals to-day de-
cided that the NewYork Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty Children is not charitabla instftll-
ton within the meaning of the Constitution and
that II does not come within the Jurisdiction OF the
state Board OF Charities This is the end OF a long
controversy between Elhr!dse T. Gerry the head
OF the society. and the state Board OF Charities
The decision OF the Court OF Appeals was rendered
BY vote OF to 5. Those who voted to sustain the
society IN its contention that fl under the
jurisdiction of the State Board OF Charities were
Chief Judge Parker and Judges Bartlett Gray and
OBrien. and those who believed that IL should
come under the Jurisdiction OF that Beard were
Judges Martin. Vann and Haight. Judge O.Brien
wrote the prevailing opinion and Judge Martin the
dissenting opinion
The title OF the case was State * rel the STAT
Board OF Charities against the New-York Society
for the Prevention Of Cruelty 10 Children This
case has been in the courts for nearly year The
Gerry society tried to show that the State Board
OF Charities had no power visit and inspect IL.
the legal question being whether IL was charitabl
or eleemOsyuary institution.
The State Board Of Charities sought jurisdiction
over this society under the revised legislation which
says the Legislature shall provide for A statA
Board Of Charities. which shall visit and tnspect
all institutions, whether State county municipal
Incorporated or not Incorporated. which are OF 4
charitable eleemosynary. correctional or reforna-
tory character and under Section 10 OF the Re-
vised Charities act.
The Gerry society originally procured a mar
damus restraining the Board of Charities from ex-
ercsing It's functions but this decision of the lower
court was reversed by the Appellate Division IN a
unanimous decision. the opinion being written by
Justice Barrett
The society contended that 1t was not "a char
table or eleemosynary institution within the
meaning of the Legislature the Charities law
Inc enect Of the decision. Of course is to remove
tne society from the Jurisdiction Of the Board OF
Charities.
JUDGE O'BRIENS OPINION
The opinion Of Judge O'Brien in part SAYS:
The powers OF the State Board of Charities over
charitable institutions originated in the abuses SUP
posed 70 exist IN the appropriation and expenditure
is to be found the reason for the law. and ii Is
S 5 enough TO assume that a corporation that
not charitable institution even though engaged
VAR eo 1b anP lagdable work without gain re-
haxi.,1 me Board was empowered TO deal with
charitable institutions in the broad and gem
limited and restricted sense in which those tary,s
are used in the Constitution and the statute The
apply 20 every institution engaged in some GOOD -
commemorative work for the relief OF humanity from
but only to those maintained in whole or in nsrt ~,
1e 'ats OF some OF its political divisions through
when charlty. as such. was dispensed bx ufIbIie
authority to those having a claim upon The rs1-
tions that are within the Teaso5 te o1y nstItn-
law, and when thus limited and Restricted tberz "a
still ample scope for its application II viii annIS
to all institutions public or private that gi pb
lie pecuniary relief in that form commonly ca5IIs5
chdrIty When We refer to the administration ~
government, and il viii exclude only tboSs ~ ~
sctutions that ask nothing in the form OF charity
from the State, though they may be ENGAGED n
some good work in their own way that 3iSbt b,
sated charitable in the sense that il Is unselnsh
gu So. Vo!uhtdFHy assumed There is such a plain
9istinctlon between the charity which the state
e+eTdd Py statute and that which is voluntarily
individuals or societies with Corporate orEa1fSs-
Board Of Charities - Inc S'4'S