SALVATION ARMY.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13230, 25 September 1908, Page 3

SALVATION ARMY.

• AN APPEAL CASE. (STZCIAI TO "THI TEESS.") DUNEBTN, September 23. The papers before the Supreme Court to-<lay in connecUon with a Salvation ; Army appeal case included ono which eet forth tho religious doctrino professed by the Army. It consisted of ■ eleven short paragraphs, embodying I well-known cvamgelical propositions, I and is just about the length of the Ten i Commandments. This doctrine also included a copy of the deed poll or instrument under which properties are held in trust by General Booth- Has tenure of office is unassailable; his rights are so completely autocratic as to give him the sole night to appoint his successor. In the words of tho deed, "tho Army is and shall be always hereafter under the oversight, direction, and absolute control of someowe porson, who shall be known, called, and styled by th© title of General. William Booth shall continue to bo, for tho term of his natural life, the General, unless he ehall resign. William Booth and every General wlio shall succeed him, ehall ha>ve power to .appoint his successor." To-day Mr Justice- Williams sat in banco to hear a case on appeal uudier section 17 of tlhe Deceased Persons Estates Duties Act, 1881. Amendment Act, 1885. Mr Samuel Wilson, farmer, of Awamcko, died last year. The amount of his esfcato was £34,000 8s 4d. By his will ho divided his residuary estate into four parts. Two of these parts, amounting in the whoJ© to about £15,000, he bequeathed to tho Salvation Army, to bo aipplied to tho social work of the Army in Xew Zealand. Tho duty on tho estate was assessed by tho Commissioner of Stamps at £3467 14a 2d. From that decision, the Army now appealed 1 , so far as tho Army's share was concerned. Tho question for tho Ocxurt was whether the gift was exempt by any of "the legislation which provides for tho exemption of certain charitable bequests. Mr Adams argued that the bequest was witih.in tho exemption of tho 1883 Act, and that tho decisions in New Zealand supported' that view. The bequest was for a specific •elbject, the social work iri New Zealand, and tjiat, he contended, meant the work of rth© Army an oarried oh at the time of tbo. testator's a death. Ho was net concerned with subsequent extensions o.f the Army work. Mr -HosScmg submitted, on the authority of • two decisions 'by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, that thojgift in this case, if it was a. gift to an institution, must bo a gift to the Salvation Army as an institution j that, if tfoo Salvation Army wns not to be regarded as tho direct object of the gift, >but if the work or charity was to be regarded as tho object of the gift, then the social work of the Army was not confined to the particmlar branches existing a,t the date- of the will- That was to say, a gift , for social work musrt moan any clasre cf siocial work which the Army, within its constitution, might choose to enter upon, whether associated with an> institution or not, and that tho exemption did not apply where property given might optionally be applied either to some particular- institution that might come within the terms of tho Act or might not bo a'ptjied. His Honour reserved his decision.