Carson City daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1907-1930, 1916-12-29
marked out the lot, put stakes down,
or ANYTHING like that?"

LII tiiHS line tAdt! !
"a. Mr.. Manning take him down
and measure and show him the lot,
stuck up square all of the corner and
show him that is the place going to
build for Joss House. That is what
Mr.. Manning said"
@. And ask him if they set UP =.
stakes, stick stakes on the corners?'
"a. Yes, sir"
%. Ask him if that was the same
place they. build the Joss House?'
"a. Same place"
%. Ask him if Mr.. Manning or
Mr.. Haskell, or any other person,
ever said they owned the property
r said anything about the title to
the property after that time?"
"A. He said he asked Mr.. Man
ming, Manning said give to him, this
belong to the Joss House property"
Charity 81 Yen, 4 witness called
III behalf of plaintiff. seemed to have
given a ~cortion Of RS testimony di-
It and some through Al Interpreter.
In answering directly, when asked
nat was SAID by Mr.. Manning, the
witness replied:
Yes, | give China by for the Joss
louise. | tell him M. Peek no use
-, suit. row. No use row about
t'lat.. tie l him Mr.. Peck 8 x
:ng tell him Mr.. Peck, he say
The following seems to have been
he testimony which the witness gave
through an interpreter:
.... canning did tell Mr.. Peck |
mcn. Don't bother with it. Leave
Tie testimony upon which it is
claimed that a license was granted to
use the lot in question for a Joss
! House is that of the witness John
Fraser, wherein he testified relative
to a conversation with Mr.. Manning.
land said:
And we got to talking about old
mes in Reno. and this China -ques-
ion VAS brought up and I says
There amt much left down in China
oNn now except the Joss House on
the South side And he says, No
He saws he guessed they will keep
that as long as they don't have tc
paw ANYTHING on the rent of the
ground. He didn't tell me that he
gave them the ground or anything
of that kind. But he said they mad
never paid any rent on it."
We can not see that there is any
thing in the testimony Of the witness
Fraser which is in conflict with the
evidence OF the other witnesses. HI
simply related that Manning had sale
that the society did not have to pay
rent: but Manning did not say tina
he had or had not given the grounc
to the society. If he had gwen the
J.. ground to the society forever" a:
testified by SUI Lee, they certainly
would not nave to pay rent. TIL.
language used by Manning was il
no way contradictory Of the testi
mony given by the witnesses who
appeared in behalf of the plaintiffs
1t is All elementary rule that on
should be construed strongly in fav
Finn, - Nev.2oe.)
IhlS brings us to a consideration
OF the question whether an unincor
5 porated religious society can tax,
title to real estate in Nevada. w,
think it can. Counsel for respond
ents, in support of their contention
rely upon the following Language
l from "a Cyc., p: 114o, to sustain thei
l position:
"Mere voluntary religious associa
tons are incapable of taking O
holding real property in their societ:
name"
! Some of the cases cited in supper
of the text rely upon Trustees O
Baptist Assn VS.. Hart, 4 Wheat,1, t.
sustain the position taken, while tn
case of Goesele VS. Bimler, 10 Fed
Gas. No. 55O3, 5 Mclean 223, ahirme'
in IA How. $50, IA L. ed. 554, was no
a case Of a gift for charitable uses
Some of the other cases cited do no
give the question the consideration
which it merits. The case whicl
r most strongly sustains the position o
2 respondents is that of Baptist, Asst
VS.. Hart, supra. but that case wa
Ioverruled by an unanimous court ii
j Vidal VS.. Girard's Extrs., 2 How. III
the opinion having been written b
Storey, J., who was a member of tn
= court when Baptist Assn VS., Har
= was decided. After some considera
v ton of the m law and the Stat
: ute of 43 of Elizabeth, known as tn
e statute of "Charitable Uses tn
opinion proceeds:
e There are, however, dicta O
|eminent judges, (some Of which wer
commented upon in the case of
Wheat. ID which do certainly sup
: lport the doctrine that charitable use
e might be enforced in chancery upo:
the general jurisdiction of the court
; independent of the statute of 43 o
t Elizabeth; and that the jurisdictio,
k had been acted upon not only subse
e quent but antecedent to that statute
/ ISuch was the opinion of Sir JOSEF
Jekyqll in Eyre VS.. Countess O
{Shaftsbury, e P. Will. 1O3, 2 Equit
t Abridg. 7lO, pl. ~ and that of Lor,
y ~Northington in Acknowledgement v:
Tanored, l Eden, 10, Is. c. Amber
' 1851, l VIM. Black. oO,) and that O
Lord Chief Justice Wilmot in hi
: elaborate judgment in Attorney-Gen
! eral VS.. LADY, Downing. WilmOt'