GIFTS UNDER WILL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22064, 21 September 1933, Page 10

GIFTS UNDER WILL

UNCERTAINTY OF .INTENTION APPEAL COURT PROCEEDINGS. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, September 20, The Court of Appeal reseryed its decision in the case of the Solicitor-general v. Bydder and others. Mr Wiren continued his argument that the gift was bad by reason of its uncertainty. Mr Biss, counsel for the trustees, said his clients merely wished to abide by the decision of the court. He did not propose to take part in the argument.

The Solicitor-general appealed against the judgment of Mr Justice MacGregor, delivered at Wellington on July 11, 1933, in which he held that certain gifts under the will of Gains Brewer, formerly of Wellington, were void for uncertainty. Brewer died on November 20, 1929, leaving a will containing the following clause: —“In trust, as to capital and income, that my trustees shall expend the same in their absolute and unfettered discretion in gifts to be employed in the service of my Lord and Master, and, or in relieving at any time any pious person or persons in need whom they may wish to assist.” On application being made to the court by the trustees to determine whether the gifts were valid, Mr Justice MacGregor held that they were void for uncertainty, and the appeal is brought from this decision. , , Mr A. Fair, K.C., Solicitor-general, for the Crown as the protector of chanties, submitted that a trust for thc_ purpose of “ relieving at any time any pious person or persons in need,” was clearly a, good charitable trust and not void for uncertainty. The alternative trust, in the service of my Lord and Master, although nominally a religious trust, was really a trust for charitable purposes, and not therefore in conflict with the first trust. “In the service of my Lord and Master” was not of such a shadowy, indefinite nature, as was suggested by the trial judge, that the court could not execute it. He contended further that the words used had been accepted for oyer 100 years as creating a good charitable trust, and if the court held otherwise the decision would have the effect of upsetting scores, possibly hundreds, of wills already made. Doubt as to vagueness, he submitted, would be solved if regard was had to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. The testator was a member of the pious sect of Plymouth Brethren, which had no permanent minister or organisation to which the residue of the estate, approximately £BOOO, could be left. The testator’s only alternative, therefore, was to leave the estate to the trustees, and give them general discretion as to the distribution of the estate. Mr Wiren, for the other side, contended that the gift in question was void as being too indefinite. According to established law a religious trust was not a charitable trust unless it tended solely to the edification or instruction of the public. This it did not. He submitted further that it was void ag it would permit the trustees to devote moneys to objects other than those recognised by the courts as charitable objects. Moreover, it was so indefinite that it would be impossible for the court to supervise its administration as wag necessary in all valid charitable bequests.