PARK AND CEMETERY. 
VII 
CEMETERY BEQUESTS. 
{Continued Jrom page 119) 
3 Eq. 173, 36 L. J. Ch. N. S. 52, 14 
Week. Rep. 576. A very small num- 
ber of recipients of the charity are 
sufficient. In re Rogerson (1901) 1 
Ch. 715, 70 L. J. Ch. N. S. 444, 84 L. 
T. N. S. 200. A trust to keep in repair 
a church, or even the ornaments of a 
church, is good; therefore a gift to 
keep in repair the churchyard round 
the church is good In re Vaughan 
(1886) 33 Ch. D. 187, 192, 55 L. T. N. 
S. 547, 35 Week. Rep. 104, 51 J. P. 70. 
H. Terrell, K. C., and A. D. Tyssen, 
for the representatives of Henry Man- 
ser, the residuary legatee. To be a 
good charitable legacy a gift for the 
repair of a burial ground must come 
within one of the four classes men- 
tioned by Lord Macnaghten in Com- 
missioners for Special Purposes of In- 
come Tax v. Pemsel (1891) A. C. 531, 
583, 61 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 265, 65 L. T. 
N. S. 621, 55 J. P. 805. It must be a 
trust for the relief of poverty, for the 
advancement of education, for the ad- 
vancement of religion, or for other 
purposes beneficial to the community. 
This is obviously not within the first 
two heads. We submit further that it 
is not for the advancement of relig- 
ion. A gift for keeping up a meeting- 
house would be [71] good, but Quak- 
ers do not hold any settled religious 
service on the occasion of a funeral. 
A gift for a private burial ground 
would be void. Yeap Cheah Neo v. 
Ong Cheng Neo (1875) L. R. 6 P. C. 
381. The distinction between public 
and private burial grounds is shown 
by Reg v. Burial Board of Bishop 
Wearmouth (1879) 5 Q. B. D. 67. In 
order to come within the fourth class 
a trust must be for the benefit of the 
public generally. The cases show that 
a trust for the inhabitants of a par- 
ticular parish may be a public general 
trust. It may be limited in area, pro- 
vided that it is open to the public 
within that area. But a trust for the 
benefit of the members of a particular 
society, such as a club or a friendly 
society, is not a charity. In re Clark’s 
Trust (1875) 1 Ch. D. 497, 45 L. J. Ch. 
N. S. 194, 24 Week. Rep. 233. The 
Society of Friends is simply a club. 
A burial ground belonging to the 
Church of England .is in a different 
position. It is within the church 
building act 1803, which enables land 
to be given for burial grounds, and 
money not exceeding 500/. to be given 
for the repair of churchyards. With- 
out that act such a gift would not be 
valid, and it does not apply to Quak- 
ers. The gift In re Vaughan (1886) 
33 Ch. D. 187, for repairing the parish 
churchyard was only supported on the 
ground that it was legalized by the 
act. If the applicant is right, the de- 
cision in In re Vaughan, supra, need 
not have been given; it would have 
been enough to say that there was a 
good charitable trust. The judgment 
shows that the fact that it was a bur- 
ial ground was not enough to make 
it a charity. The question is whether 
the trust is for the benefit of the pub- 
lic or is confined to the members of a 
particular society. There is no case 
in which a gift of a burial ground for 
dissenters has been held to be a pub- 
lic charity. The fact that the rates 
may thereby be relieved is immate- 
rial. 
The gift is for the repair of existing 
burial grounds; and disused grounds 
cannot be considered. The fact that 
the Cottered ground was given to all 
Christian people is therefore of no im- 
portance. 
The gift for the repair of his wife’s 
grave is clearly void. It is not a mere 
addition to a valid charitable gift. 
Warrington, J. : The question I 
have to decide is whether a legacy 
contained in the will of Alfred Man- 
ser is valid or not. The legacy is in 
these terms: “To pay to the Hert- 
ford and Hoddesdon Preparative 
Meeting the sum of 1,000/., I directing 
that the meeting shall appoint five of 
their members to receive and give a 
receipt for the same, and that the 
same shall be invested by the five 
members, and the interest applied by 
them under the order of the said 
preparative meeting for the sole pur- 
pose of keeping in good order the ex- 
isting burial grounds under the care 
of the meeting, and in particular the 
grave of my late wife.” The effect of 
that bequest is simply to give a sum 
of money to trustees to be applied by 
them under certain directions for the 
purpose of keeping in good order 
some burial grounds, "and in particu- 
lar the grave of my late wife,” — which 
T suppose was situated in one of the 
burial grounds. 
The question I have to determine is 
whether that is a good charitable gift. 
Tt turns on this. Is a gift of money 
for the purpose of providing a burial 
ground a good charitable gift? Be- 
cause, if it is, it seems to me that a 
gift of money for the purpose of keep- 
ing such a burial ground in order 
would also be a good charitable gift. 
It has to be borne in mind that in 
this particular case the burial grounds 
were provided as burial grounds for 
the Society of Friends. I am aware 
that that is not quite an accurate 
statement, because one of the burial 
grounds referred to in the evidence 
was provided for the burial of “all 
Christian people;” but I put that par- 
ticular burial ground out of the ques- 
tion as if it did not exist, and I repeat 
that, for the purpose of the question 
which I have to decide, the burial 
grounds for the keeping in good or- 
der of which this legacy was given are 
burial grounds provided for the bene- 
fit of the Society of Friends. 
Now is a gift of a burial ground for 
the benefit of the Society of Friends 
a good charitable gift? In my opin- 
ion it is. 73 Lord Macnaghten says 
in the case of Commissioners for Spe- 
cial Purposes of Income Tax v. Pem- 
sel (1891) A. C. 531, 583, 61 L. L. Q. 
B. N. S. 265, 65 L. T. N. S. 621, 55 J. 
P. 805, after referring to the popular 
meaning of the word “charity” and its 
legal meaning, ‘‘How far, then, it may 
be asked, does the popular meaning of 
the word ‘charity’ correspond with its 
legal meaning? -Charity’ in its legal 
sense comprises four principal divi- 
sions: trusts for the relief of poverty; 
trusts for the advancement of educa- 
tion; trusts for the advancement of 
religion; and trusts for other purposes 
beneficial to the community, not fall- 
ing under any of the preceding heads. 
Then he goes on: “The trusts last 
referred to are not the less charitable 
in the eye of the law, because inciden- 
tally they benefit the rich as well as 
the poor, as indeed, every charity that 
deserves the name must do, either di- 
rectly or indirectly.” Now, in my 
opinion, a gift of money for the pur- 
pose of providing, or, as in this case, 
for the purpose of keeping in good 
order, a burial ground, though that 
burial ground may not be a parish 
churchyard, and though it may be 
connected with the meeting-house of, 
or for the benefit of members of, a 
particular religious community, may 
be supported as a gift for the ad- 
vancement of religion, and therefore a 
good charitable gift. The question 
has been argued as if a gift of money 
for this purpose was merely a gift of 
money to certain individuals asso- 
ciated as a club for some purpose of 
their own; but I do not regard it in 
that light. There can be no doubt 
that a gift of money to be invested in 
the purchase of land or in the pur- 
chase of a building to be used as a 
chapel or meeting-house for the pur- 
poses of a particular Christian denom- 
ination would be a good charitable 
gift, as would be also money to be 
expended in tbs: maintenance or 
{Ctmtinued on page XIV) 
