CHAN.] MORRIS v. CANNAN. LEL readiness to register the plt. as the holder of the said | or brought himself within the provisions of the "Ay 150 shares. That he thereupon sent to Messrs. Link- Vict. c. 110, the transfer of the shares was not vi later and Hackwood, the solicitors for the defts., a copy void; and secondly, whether or not the shers v of the draft so settled and approved of by the solicitors the reputed or apparent ownership of the bank... for the company, but which, on behalf of their clients, the time of his bankruptcy. they declined to concur in. Mr. Southgate and other stockbrokers deposed that t was the custom for dealers in shares on the Stock Exchange, who had no intention of holding themselves the shares in which they dealt, but merely bought them to sell again as they would any other article of merchandise, to take the transfer of such shares on a deed executed by the seller, but without date, and without the name of the buyer, that when they had sold again the shares to which the transfer related, they might fill in the name of the sub-purchaser and the date; that this was only usual or necessary where the particular shares were sold for immediate payment, as where they were sold for the account, if the name of the ultimate purchaser who was to hold them was passed to the original seller before the account day he transferred direct to the last purchaser. The cause came on upon motion for decreas 3rd March last, before Stuart, V.C., when his : was of opinion that the plt. had failed in prevaz change in the ownership of the shares, and t his bill with costs: (vide ante, p. 17.) The ph brought the present appeal. Malins, Q. C. and Roxburgh for the plt. the The following authorities were cited:-Ez p Cur, adt, ra Mr. Cull, the assistant-secretary of the Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, deposed that it was his duty to keep the register of shareholders and attend to the transfer books of the company; that previously to the 19th July 1860 Daunt was the owner of certain shares in the company numbered from 20,306 to 20,455, but inasmuch as the com- The LORD CHANCELLOR.-The Thaines and pany had not been very long in existence, there Marine Insurance Company is a joint-stock emp had not been time, amidst the other concerns press- completely registered under the 7 & 8 Vict & i ing upon the administration of a new company, to In July 1860 a Mr. Edward Russell Dant make out and deliver to the shareholders their share titled to 150 207. shares in this company; be is! certificates. On the 19th July 1860 a clerk of been returned to the Joint-Stock Companies Pag Mr. Charles Watson, a stockbroker, called at the tion office as a shareholder, nor had he exch office of the company and produced to him three deed of settlement. It appears that these stars re several transfers for fifty shares each, and asked originally allotted to a Mr. Thomas Sleigh, wha him to certify on each of them that the certificates cuted the deed of settlement in respect of them. for the shares therein referred to were at the office I presume, although the fact is not stated in the of the said company, and he accordingly then and davits, had been returned to the office as or. there attached his signature thereon as follows:- the deed of transfer dated the 3rd July 1860 "Cert. for fifty shares at office. James Cull, Sleigh sold and transferred these shares to Mr. D Assistant Secretary;" and at the same time made Some communication of the sale and transfer an entry in the proper book of the company for I infer from other statements, have been made that purpose at that time, and which was headed company. What was the form or nature of th "Shares certified at office." That it was not the munication does not appear. It would seen in practice of stockbrokers to inform him that the affidavit of Mr. Cull, the assistant secretary, ÎN shares of a shareholder had been sold when they the 14th Dec., that a book for registering shar asked him to give similar certificates to that given and also a book for entering transfers, were k in the present case, inasmuch as the production of intended to be kept, in the office of the company the transfer, coupled with the request to certify, of it is not stated by the assignees, the defts, whose itself conveyed an intimation that the shares were it would be, that at the time of the bankrapy to be transferred by the proprietor to whose shares Daunt appeared in any book kept at the the application related, no such certificate ever being company, as the owner of the shares in questa wanted or asked for, except for the purpose of some way the under-secretary had information transferring the shares to which it related; and he or on the 19th July 1860, that Mr. S presumed, from the request so made to him by the had sold his shares to Mr. Daunt, bet vie clerk of Watson, that Daunt had parted, or had that information was recorded in any bos agreed to part, with his shares, and after the to show that Mr. Daunt had become the en deponent had given such certificates and made such of these shares, the assignees of Mr. Dari entries in the books of the company, the company neither stated nor proved. Their case, as set ferm would not have again given any certificate of the the sixteenth paragraph of their answer, is this:** said 150 shares of Daunt being at the office, or the shares at the time Mr. Daunt became but delivered to him the share certificates them- were, by the consent and permission of the tr selves, or accepted any transfer of the said thereof, in the possession, order and dispe shares from Daunt to any person whomsoever, Daunt, and that he was the reputed owner, except the person producing the three transfers, with- taken upon him the sale, alienation, or dispe out evidence of the cancellation of such transfers; the same, as owner." The onus lies on the ass that at the time such transfers were produced to him to prove this allegation, that Mr. Daunt was they were executed by Daunt, and that it was not the apparent or reputed owner of the shares at the practice of the company to give such certificates ex- his bankruptcy, or that they were at that t order and disposition as owner. Mr. Dannt The plt. filed no interrogatories to his bill; but the judged a bankrupt on the 30th July 1860. W defts. filed a voluntary answer. were, whether Daunt, not having executed the com- the 19th July 1860 Mr. Daunt, through his The questions raised act of bankruptcy was committed is not stated any's deed of settlement, and thereby complied with Mr. Watson, sold these shares on the Stock E cept upon executed transfers. CHAN.] PARSONS v. HAYWARD. [ROLLS. the plt. Mr. Morris. The usual bought and sold | section-and which objection was, that that section proes were delivered, and on the same day the pur-hibited alienation by a shareholder until after that se-money was paid by the plt. This sale shareholder had executed the deed of settlement, or had ght to have been completed by a deed of transfer, been registered as owner. I think that argument is 1 by delivery of the certificates of the shares, but it founded upon a misapprehension of the intent and bears from the affidavits of Mr. Cull, the assistant- effect of that section. The portion of the section which retary, that, owing to the recent establishment of is relied on applies not to shareholders, but to sub= company and the pressure of the business, the scribers. The word "subscribers" has attached to it re certificates had not been made out, and the following words, "and every person entitled or course not delivered to the shareholders; where claiming to any share in a joint-stock company;" but 3 is the case, it seems to be the practice I think those words must be read in connection with share-brokers for the seller's broker to take the the word "subscribers," and must mean, not to the exeds of transfer to the office of the company, tent of the generality of the expression, but to the limited get indorsed on the deeds a memorandum that extent of persons claiming under a subscriber; as, for certificates of the shares proposed to be transferred example, the personal representatives or the legatees of in the possession of the company, and this memo- a subscriber, because throughout the Act subscriber dum or acknowledgment is accepted by the buyer is opposed to "shareholder;" and in the interpretation lieu of the certificates themselves. Accordingly clause "subscriber" is thus interpreted, "that it shall ee transfers were prepared, each of fifty shares, and mean any person who shall have agreed in writing to re duly executed by Mr. Daunt; but, according to an take or have taken any shares in a proposed company, oneous practice then common on the Stock Exchange, or in a company formed, and who shall not have exeblank was left in each deed for the name of the trans-cuted the deed of settlement or a deed referring ee, but the money consideration was inserted in the thereto." Now, Mr. Daunt was certainly not a subnsfer, and acknowledged to have been received by scriber to this company in the sense of that word so -. Daunt. These transfers were, on the 19th July interpreted. It is true that Mr. Daunt does not ap60, carried by the broker Mr. Watson to the office of pear to have executed the deed of settlement, but he company, and upon the transfers Mr. Cull, the had executed the deed of transfer to himself from Mr. sistant-secretary, indorsed memoranda to the effect Sleigh; and the deed of transfer refers to the settleat the transfers had been certified at the office, and ment by incorporating the condition under which the at the certificates of the shares comprehended in the original shareholder Mr. Sleigh held the shares. I ansfer were at that time in the hands of the company. am therefore of opinion that that particular clause of e transfers have been produced in the cause, with the Act has no application to the transfers made by an e memoranda indorsed to the effect which I have individual who had himself executed the deed of settleready stated. Now it appears from the affidavits ment, or the deed referring thereto; I cannot, thereich have been filed, and it is no longer the subject fore, rest any objection to the plt.'s title upon this dispute, that from and after the indorsements so particular portion of the Act which was made the ade by the under-secretary the office would not have foundation of the argument. That does not appear, I rmitted any transfer or alienation of the shares to think, to have been taken before the V. C., nor do I effected without the production of the deeds find any reference to it in the answer; but, waiving transfer on which these indorsements were those considerations, I am of opinion that there is no ade. These deeds of transfer were delivered to the foundation for the objection. I therefore am obliged t. Mr. Morris, and therefore, according to the indis- to reverse the decree of the V. C., and to make a decree table evidence, unless the deeds of transfer were pro- in favour of the plt. in conformity with the prayer of aced to the company, no effectual alienation or deal- the bill. There remains yet one consideration. The g with the shares could have been accomplished. I assignees invited the plt. to come into the Court n asked, therefore, upon these facts to determine of Bankruptcy to have the question determined. hether Mr. Daunt was the apparent owner. The It might have been competent to the Court of swer, I think, is that the books of the company in Bankruptcy to entertain and determine the quese office of the company did not not furnish any kind tion. No doubt any decision of the commisE proof that Mr. Daunt was the apparent owner. I sioner would have led to an appeal to the Court of n asked, in the next place, to determine that Mr. Appeal in bankruptcy. I am not of opinion that any aunt was the reputed owner; but the evidence is dis- expense would have been saved to the parties if the net that Mr. Daunt ceased to be regarded as the invitation of the assignees had been accepted by the wner from and after the production of these deeds of plt. The plt. had his election unquestionably to come ansfer. Mr. Cull, the assistant-secretary-and the into the Court of Ch., and I cannot deprive him vidence appears not to be brought into question or of his right to be indemnified against the costs of the ispute-states that the office would have derived from suit by reason of the unfounded claim of the assignees, e production of the deeds of transfer a conclusion in consequence of his preferring to sue in the Court of at the same shares had been parted with or were bont to be parted with; and therefore, if any inquiry ad been made at the office, the answer undoubtedly must have been, that Mr. Daunt was no longer he owner of them. I am asked, in the third place, to the conclusion that the shares remained in the order and disposition of Mr. Daunt; but he evidence is distinct that, without the production of he deeds of transfer so certified, no alienation would ave been permitted to be made by Mr. Daunt, and as hose deeds of transfer had been delivered over to Mr. Morris, it is plain that the shares no longer remained the order and disposition of Mr. Daunt. Obliged therefore, upon that part of the case, to come o a conclusion the opposite of that at which the V. C. arrived. Another point remains in the case, which is an objection founded on one of the sections of the JointStock Companies Act, 7 & 8 Vict.-I think the 24th 0 come I am Ch. I must therefore give him the costs of the suit as against the assignees. The assignees no doubt will, by a proper application in bankruptcy, be held entitled to receive those costs out of the estate of the bankrupt. My order reverses the decree of the V.C., makes a decree in conformity with the prayer of the bill, and gives the plt. the costs of the suit. Solicitors for the plt., Lowless and Nelson; for the defts., J. and J. H. Linklater and Hackwood. ROLLS COURT. Reported by H. R. YOUNG, Esq, Barrister-at-Law. April 28 and 29. PARSONS v. HAYWARD. Partnership-Term-Dissolution- Notice- Where two persons enter into a partnership for a term of years, and after the expiration of the term | the business is carried on in the same way as before, the rights of the partners, as between themselves, are not altered, but continue as if they had entered into a formal agreement to renew the partnership upon the same terms as previously, and the joint assent of the partners is not required for that purpose. It is, however, the duty of the party who insists that the partnership shall not go on, to give notice to the other partner of the determination of the partnership. In every case of a partnership for a fixed term of years, it continues for the purpose of winding it up. [B Oxford aforesaid, to be appointed by the sit The accounts of the partnership were made annually from time to time; and the last of un made up to the 4th Sept. 1859 (that was to say, ta accounts of 1858 and 1859) were settled in Ji 1860. The seven years expired in Aug. 1859, vi the plt.'s share in the capital amounted to 1200 The deft. carried on the business after the expiretis. the seven years, but upon being asked by the pist account to him for the profits made after the sa ment of the accounts to Sept. 1859, he refused to a count for them, alleging that at the expiration of t seven years term the partnership was at an end; and thenceforth he had carried on the business on his out account. On the 21st Jan. 1860 he wrote the the following letter: "I have carefully read the paper of the 17th in which you sent me, and regret very much to find : there is any dissatisfaction in your mind with refers to our past connection. There cannot be the sig doubt that our partnership was formed, and intend to last, for seven years, and that time expired în de 31st July 1859. Since that I have, in the terms our articles, paid all debts, and am now prepare pay you one moiety of the value of the stock-12-220 and fixtures, and which I had proposed to tar cost price instead of by valuation. There w only remain your share of the debts, and I shoalan be unwilling to arrange special time for their discre in case you prefer that plan to the mode of pointed out by the deed. If, however, you think have any other claim, let me know it; and if we d I should have no difficulty in leaving it to the ac ment of mutual friends." By articles of partnership dated the 12th of Aug. 1852, the plt. and deft. entered upon the business of hatters and hosiers at Oxford. The articles provided that the partnership should continue for the term of seven years from the date of the articles if the partners should so long live, and should be carried on under the style or firm of William Hayward ;" and all contracts and other transactions entered into on account of the partnership were to be made in that name or style. By the seventh clause of the articles, it was provided that the capital of the copartnership should consist of the sum of 14001., to be contributed by the partners in equal shares; and that in case the partners should mutually agree to employ additional capital in the business, the plt. should advance any sum or sums of money not exceeding in the aggregate 20001.; and that in case they should agree that further capital was required, they should advance capital in equal shares; or in the event of one of the partners declining, the other of them might advance the whole of such further capital; but neither of the partners was to be at liberty to draw out of the partnership any part of the additional capital unless he should give the other three calendar months' notice in writing of his intention to withdraw the same. By the 13th clause of the articles, it was provided that the deft. should at all times during the partnership diligently employ himself in the business, and carry on the same to the greatest advantage, and should not, either directly or indirectly, engage himself in any other basiness or occupation; To that letter the plt. sent the following reply but the plt. was not to be compelled to give his per- "From your letter of yesterday I regret to it sonal attendance or attention to the partnership business, confirmation of the doubts that have for some and he was to be at liberty to continue his then business been in my mind as to the fairness of your inter engagements. By the 18th clause it was provided as in the winding-up of our partnership. There ca follows:-"That immediately upon the expiration of the least doubt that whatever we have each contribs the said partnership, or upon the sooner determina- whether in money or services, the whole belong tion thereof by notice (as in the said articles is provided) us in equal shares. It is quite clear that our part a full and general account in writing shall be made ship was for seven years, and that the time exp and taken by the said copartners of all the moneys, the 31st July 1859; but it is equally certain that stock-in-trade, debts, effects and property then belong-partnership has not been terminated. It has it bet ing to the said copartnership, and of all the moneys settled or closed by any act of either party; b and debts due or owing by and of the liabilities of the said copartnership, and a just valuation and appraisement shall be made of all the particulars included in such account, which require and are capable of valuation and appraisement, and immediately after such lastmentioned account shall have been so taken and settled, the said copartners shall forthwith make due provision for the payment of all moneys and debts then due or owing by the said copartnership, and for meeting all the liabilities thereof; and all such sums of money as shall have been advanced by the said copartners or either of them over and above the original capital of the said copartnership under the provision of the clause 7 herein, shall then be fully paid and satisfied together with interest thereon as aforesaid; and all the moneys of the said copartnership shall be divided between the said copartners in equal shares, and the stock-in-trade of the said copartnership not consisting of money shall be sold and converted into money, and divided between the said copartners in equal shares, and the outstanding debts due and owing to the said copartnership shall be collected by some accountant of the contrary, has been continued and carried every respect as at any former period; and I legally and justly entitled to my share of the pr up to the present time, the same as heretofore; b do not desire to be stringent in insisting on my 155 I only want to be treated with some degree of ness, and shall be happy to receive from you on?? and reasonable proposal for a settlement of the part ship, or 1 shall with pleasure refer the mate mutual friends, and trust that business disputes not disturb our friendship." The parties were unable to come to any ide standing with reference to the partnership afua and ultimately a bill was filed in April 1861.4 a dissolution of the partnership, and an account of partnership dealings and transactions from the f the last settlement of accounts. Selwyn, Q. C. and Townsend appeared for the på OLLS.] THORNTON v. HOWE. [ROLLS. the capital. I am clearly of opinion that the partnership continued upon the same footing subsequently to the termination of the seven years. The only doubt which I entertain is, from what time the dissolution can be said to have taken place? It is true that the letter of the 21st Jan. 1861 is not express notice of the deft.'s intention to put an end to the partnership; but did not that letter in effect put the parties at arm's length, and must it not be treated as a notice by the deft. that he did not intend any longer to treat the plt. as his partner? This is the only point upon which, as I have said, I at present feel any doubt; but subject to that I think the partnership deed must be carried into effect, and the premises sold. There is, practically, no goodwill, as the deft. may set up next door, or even in the same premises, if he thinks proper to buy them; but I will mention the case again when I have further considered it. Thursday, May 29. THORNTON v. HOWE. The 43 Eliz. c. 4—The Mortmain Act, 9 Geo. 2, c. 36-Charitable bequest within-Joanna Southcote's works. m of years, and after the expiration of that term business is carried on in the same way as before, rights of the partners, as between themselves, are altered; but continue as if they had entered into mal agreement to renew the partnership upon the terms as previously. It is not correct to say that hat purpose the joint assent of the partners is red. If the business goes on in the same way as re, that assent is not only inferred, but it becomes duty of the party who insists that the partnershall not go on to give notice to the other her of the determination of the partnership. In 7 case of a partnership for a fixed term of , the partnership continues, for the purpose of ing it up. If in the present case the partnership s had been wound-up at the expiration of the years, it would have been difficult for the plt. to contended that he was entitled to any portion of profits for any time beyond that required for the April 29.-The MASTER of the ROLLS now said: ing-up. Now, what ought to have been done in-Upon further consideration of this case, I am of case to determine the partnership? In the first opinion that, notwithstanding the letter of the 21st , the place of business should have been sold. It Jan. 1861, the accounts must be taken upon the footne that the house itself, if held at 1ack-rent, may ing of the deed, down to the time when the partnervery little value separate from the business; but ship is actually wound-up, and the partnership assets ded in connection with it, and as the place in realised in accordance with the provisions of the deec, h the business has for a long time been carried on, with a declaration that the plt. is entitled to his proay be, as an asset of the partnership, of great value. portion of the profits up to that time. With respect as open in this case for either of the partners to to the costs, I think that, although the deft. was misgiven notice to the other that at the expiration taken in his view of the law, there is no sufficient he seven years the partnership would not be reason for visiting him with costs. He was entitled, inued upon the original terms. But such notice was if he thought fit, to have the partnership dissolved given; on the contrary, the business was carried under the direction of the court; and the costs will t the same place, in the same name, and in exactly follow the ordinary rule in such cases. same manner in all respects after as it had been ed on before the expiration of the original term. n July 1859 either party was at liberty to have inated the connection; but until the connection actually severed, the previous relation of partners inued. But what notice, if any, did the deft. give is intention to terminate the partnership? It aps that in Feb. 1860 the plt. applied to the deft. ake an affidavit in a suit in which the plt. wished e appointed receiver. It was objected to his being inted receiver, that he was fully engaged in a ness-meaning this business-which occupied his le time; and it was to meet that objection that the applied to the deft. to make the affidavit. In the avit, as it was first prepared, the deft. stated in et that the business was wholly and exclusively his; upon the plt. objecting to the terms of the affit, the deft. modified them. The affidavit, as red, contained this paragraph: "The said business mercer and trader, carried on by me the deponent, only person of the name in Oxford carrying on the trade, is wholly and solely conducted by me this onent; and James Parsons never, except as rds pecuniary assistance, assisted me in the king and managing my said business or any ; thereof; and to the best of my recollection belief the said James Parsons has never been to shop more than five or six times during the whole the eight years I have been in business for myself." v, to what does that amount? In the first place it n relation to a matter which may be said to be inter alios acta; and, secondly, it is not a matter irect communication between the plt. and the deft., collateral and incidental. If, indeed, the claim e put forward amounts to anything, it amounts to aim on the part of the deft. to have been the sole exclusive owner of the business since the year 2-during the whole time that he had been in the iness; but it is admitted that a partnership existed n to July 1859. The fact is, the deft. was under istake as to what the law was; he thought that, at end of the term, the business was his; that he had hing further to do than to pay the plt. his share of A testatrix devised and bequeathed the residue of her real and personal estate to a trustee, and directed the produce of such estate to be applied "for and towards the printing, publishing and propagation of the sacred writings of the late Joanna Southcole." The testatrix died seised of realty, but had not personally enough to pay more than her debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses : Held, that the devise was a charitable one, within the provisions of the Statute of Mortmain, and therefore void. Observations of the court on the character of Joanna Southcole's works, and the principles on which the court acts in cases of religious bequests. The bill in this suit was filed for the administration of the real and personal estate of a Mrs. Ann Essam; but it also sought the opinion of the court as to whether a devise contained in the will of Mrs. Essam, for the propagation of the works of Joanna Southcote was a valid one? The bill stated that Ann Essam, the testatrix, by her will, dated 8th March 1843, devised and bequeathed her real and personal estate as follows:-"This is the last will and testament of me, Ann Essam, of Hampton, in the county of Middlesex, widow, being of sound and disposing mind and memory and understanding, though weak in bodily health. I give, devise and bequeath all my estate and effects wherewith it has pleased Almighty God to bless me in manner and form following (that is to say), I give and bequeath to Eliza Thornton the sum of 101. sterling money; I also give to the said Eliza Thornton, the bed, mattrass, bedstead and furniture, with straw-coloured lining. I give and bequeath unto Wm. Cripps, Sarah Wood, Wm. Plumridge, George Mole, David Rowe, all residing in the parish of Hampton aforesaid; to Adolphus Blake, of Bushy-park; John Spencer, of No. Fooks appeared for the plt. Eliza Thornton, t legatee named in the will, and who also claimed ta the heiress-at law of the testatrix. Selwyn, Q.C. and Speed for the deft. Howe, Fooks in reply. 49, Fetter-lane; William Shingleton, of Sprat's-lane | real estate in favour of her heir-at-law so far as cottage, Honiton; John Pye and Mary Ann Frazier, the real estate was subject to such void trust. sum of 101. sterling each, and as to all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, both real and personal, whatsoever and wheresover, that I may be possessed of after the payment of all my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses, I give, devise and bequeath the same unto Benjamin Howe, of No. 107, Old-street, St. Luke's, London, engineer, to hold to him, his heirs and assigns: but it is my express wish and desire that the produce of all my said real and personal estate so devised and bequeathed to him and his heirs shall be applied for and towards the printing, publishing, and propagation of the sacred writings of the late Joanna Southcote; and I hereby constitute and appoint the said John Spencer sole executor of this my will. Revoking all other wills, I do hereby declare this, contained in one sheet of paper, to be my last. In witness whereof I have hereihto set my hand and seal, this 8th day of March 1843." The testatrix died on the 16th March 1844 without having altered or revoked her will, which was duly proved by the said John Spencer on the 4th April 1844. At the time of her death the testatrix was seised of considerable real estate, but was not possessed of more personal property than would pay her debts, funeral and testamentary expenses. The bill charged that the trust declared by the testatrix's will of her real estate, except so far as she by her said will subjected her real estate to a trust for the payment of her debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, was void at law: and that the deft. Benjamin Howe ought to be declared trustee of such real estate for the heir or heiress, or coheiress-at-law, of the testatrix: That the deft. Benjamin Howe contended that the trust of the testatrix's real estate for and towards the promoting, publishing and propagation of the sacred writings of the late Joanna Southcote was a valid and legal trist, and ought to be executed and carried into effect; but that if the saine was not a valid and legal trust, and if the same failed for illegality, then that he and not the heir or heiress-at-law of the testatrix was beneficially entitled to her real estate, subject to the trust for payment of her debts, funeral and testamentary expenses in aid of her personal estate. The bill also charged that the writings of the said Joanna Southcote, which were referred to in the will of the testatrix, purported to declare, maintain, or reveal that she was with child by the Holy Ghost, and that a second Shiloh or Messiah was about to be born of her body; and in other parts thereof purported to be or contain revelations made to her by the Holy Ghost, or by divine inspiration, and to maintain or declare that she was moved or inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the same, and that in other parts they were of a blasphemous and profane character: The MASTER of the ROLLS said:-The questi have now to determine in this case is, w a devise of real estate, contained in the f lady of the name of Essam, is a good ber not. The devise is as follows. [His Horari the devise as above stated, and continued] first place, it is said that if this gift be for and legitimate purpose, it is a charitable gitan therefore void, so far as the real estate is concerned reason of the Statute of Mortmain. Secondly, it that this gift is wholly void, both as to the realy al personalty, by reason of the immorality and imig tendency of the writings of Joanna Southecte; widt by this disposition of her property, the testati tended to circulate and make more extensively new. Not being acquainted with the writings of Jetta Southcote, it became my duty to look into them, ir the purpose of satisfying myself on the latter p and the result of my investigation is, that the nothing to be found in them which, in my opinia s Akely to corrupt the morals of her followers, or her readers irreligious. She was, in my opi foolish, ignorant woman, of an enthusiastic turn u mind, who had so long wished to become an is ment in the hands of God to promote some great g to the earth that, by constant thinking of it, it became in her mind an engrossing and irremovable; much so, that at last she came to believe that wishes were accomplished, and that she had be selected by the Almighty for some special purpose. >> had, during her lifetime, many followers: and bably has some now, as every person will have, r has attained to such a pitch of self-confidence is st cerely to believe himself or herself to be an organ communication with mankind, especially selected that purpose by the Divine Author of their being à the history of her life, in her personal tations with the devil, in her prophecies, and her alleged intercommunion with the p world, I have found much that in my opinion foolish, but nothing that I think is likely t persons who read it immoral or irreligions. I therefore invalidate this clause in the will of the trix by reason of the tendency of the w Joanna Southcote. With respect, however, to other objection taken to this gift, viz., that it s made for the promotion of objects which are w meaning of what this court, for shortness charitable objects, and that it is consequent r falling under the prohibition of the Statute of Mar that objection, I think, presents a much more se That the trust for the printing and publishing and pro- obstacle to the validity of this devise. The statute pagation of the sacred writings of the late Joanna South- 43 Eliz. c. 4, is usually referred to for the perpet cote was either void in law on the grounds that the wri- testing, by the enumeration of the various tings in question were of a blasphemous or profane cha- mentioned in it, as being of the nature of char racter, or that the trust declared was a trust for the pro- uses, what testamentary dispositions come wi pagation of doctrines subversive of or contrary to the Statute of Mortmain. The preamble of the first Christian religion; or as being a trust for a charitable statute is in these words: "Whereas lands purpose within the Act of Parliament, c. 36, passed in ments, rents, annuities, profits, hereditaments, g 9th of Geo, 2, entitled "An Act to restrain the dis- chattels, money, and stock of money, res position of lands whereby the same may become in-heretofore given, limited, appointed, and assig alienable" (the Mortmain Act). well by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, The bill prayed (inter alia) that it might be de- most noble progenitors, as by sundry other well clared that the trust declared by the testatrix's persons, some for relief of aged, impotent and I will of her real estate, so far as it directed that people; some for maintenance of sick and the produce thereof should be applied for and soldiers and mariners, schools of learning, fre she towards the printing, publishing and propagation and scholars in universities; some for of the sacred writings of the said Joanna Southcote, was bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, se |