The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1921-01-27

No detailed discussion of the underlying
principles is required. At the close of the
nearing, among other things, | orally said
IN substance that the trustees were to con-
slider the financial and family status of the
applicants for, relief: that 1T might well
be reasonable in some cases. that money
should not be advanced except upon an
understanding for its repayment. 4 do
not believe, however, that these things
should be made absolute conditions to, the
granting of relief which ought to be given
upon consideration of the merits. of each
particular case not affecting the generous
spirit in which the testator created the
trust.
As was recited III the interlocutory de-
cree entered May 6, 1908. by Mr.. Justice
Hammond. The responsibility of admins
terlng the trust rests entirely with the
trustees, and the extent to which they
may reasonably employ or consult any
person or organization, and the extent TO
which they may heed advice and counsel
gwen by them. rests entirely in the dis
cretlon of the trustees; and it being con-
Sldered also that the decree of March ID.
1901, is ample and sufficient in its provi-
sions for the guidance of said trustees in
the performance of their duties, and it is
unwise to define in advance the matters
which said trustees may, or may not, take
into consideration in exercising the dis
erection repoSed in them by the will of said
| testatOr, and by said decree of March 10,
1901"
| | am satisfied that the trust should be
administered in favor of the primary ,bene-
ficiaries for whose benefit it was created,
promptly, and in not as close and restrict
red manner as would be justified il not
| required. in case the fuI11 had been
smaller and the property of persons en-
titled to relief larger; but, after all, the
| rea sonable discretion of the trustees large
ly must control.
1 IL -
,Of allowances to counsel 1t is apparent
that much of the time spent, and the ex'
ipenseS incurred, have to do with the peti
ton for removal of Trustee Bradley
which removal is no longer in issue. The
lother questions involved are not of Sucf
nature as to justify large charge upoT
1.-THE fund. The distance from Boston o.
counsel. and number employed, whii,
lproper for consideration, ought not TO i'm
pose large additional expense upon tn
fund. The attorney general of MaSsachu
sets represents the public interest con
lcerned. tBurbankS against Burbanks
t152 Mass. 25i L have been considerable,
inclined to make no allowance whatever
but, inasmuch as the interlOcutOry deere-
enterede May 6. 1908, made allowance fO
counsel fees and expenses, | have com
with much hesitation TO the conclusion
that allowance should be made. 1 am re
citing this doubt on my part so that c0un
sci may not rely on the allowances nov
made as q precedent i'm ease of future Iiti
CATION.
The amount allowed is not measures
by sum that would constitute, as betwee
attorney and client, adequate compensa
ton. That is not the rule. The zeal an
industry of counsel, or the needs or II
structions of clients, MAY result in the e1
penditure of much money not necessar
4 flor the reasonably preservation of proI
erty or the presentation of questions il
4 volving construction or administration {
trust. The ultimate question is: "Wht
H sum, If any, reasonably should be charge
1 on the fund because of antiquities or III
I certainties in the construction of I'll
trust and the resultant problems involve
in its ADMINISTRATION 81 The allowance fl
counsel fees contained in the DEGREES tn
day entered. have been made with thes
consultations in mind. (See Atty. Gel
eral against North American Life Insu
/ ance Co, 81 y. Y, 81. Frost again
Belmont, g Allen, 152.
III ss. CHARLES F. JEENEY,
III Judge Supreme Judicial Court.