1865. THE VISCOUNTESS D'ADHEMAR v. BERTRAND. Dec. 15. trustees. The THE HE testator, Joshua Evans, of Hampstead, by his A testator apwill, dated in 1861, devised and bequeathed his (the tenant for pointed A. B. real and personal estate unto Charlotte Bertrand and life) and C. D. James Campbell upon trust to realize and pay the income to Charlotte Bertrand for her life, and afterwards certain trusts, which it is unnecessary to state. will contained no power to appoint new trustees. upon The testator died in January, 1864, and James Campbell having renounced and disclaimed, the will was proved by Charlotte Bertrand alone, will contained no power to appoint new The trustees. C. D. having disclaimed, A. B. (under the powers of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, s. 27), appointed a single trustee in his place: Held, that the other cestuis entitled to que trust were By an indenture, dated the 16th of July, 1864, Charlotte Bertrand, by virtue of the provisions contained in the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 145, s. 27, appointed Major O'Reilly, a gentleman residing in Ireland, to be a new trustee aptrustee of the will to act in conjunction with her, This suit was instituted by the cestuis que trust the administration of the estate, which was of considerable amount. have a third pointed, and that the statute did not take very Court to in Mr. Selwyn and Mr. Sheffield, for the Plaintiffs, asked that a third trustee might be appointed. They said that, without making the slightest imputation on, the present trustees, a third trustee was necessary for the protection of the Plaintiffs' interests. Mr. Baggallay and Mr. Eddis, for Mrs. Bertrand, crease the original number of trustees. 1865. VISCOUNTESS V. BERTRAND. argued that as the testator had thought proper to commit the care of his property to two trustees, it was not the course of the Court to increase the number. Secondly, that, by the act of parliament, the power was limited, that the new trustees could only be appointed in the place of those whose office was vacant, and that consequently there was no authority given to increase the original number. The MASTER of the ROLLS. The Court never commits a trust to the care of a single trustee, even in cases where no more than one was originally appointed. In this case, I think the Plaintiffs are entitled to have an additional trustee appointed. I also think that the act of parliament, which has been referred to, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to increase the number of trustees when necessary. If I allowed this lady to appoint a single trustee, she might appoint any person she thought fit, and one who might be very unfavorably inclined towards the other cestuis que trust, and thus deprive them of the protection to which they are entitled. The Plaintiffs are entitled to have a third trustee appointed. 1865. Nov. 3. WALLACE v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. (No. 2.) (a). HIS case came before the Court upon an adjourned THIS summons. June 29. Held, in construing a legacy "aux hospices de Paris et de Londres," in the will of a Mr. Schomberg, for the English executor, referred to ,, person domi G. France, and in regard to those in London, that the word F. to be construed 'hospice" was Mr. Selwyn, Mr. Wigram, Mr. Cole, Mr. C. Hall, The MASTER of the ROLLS. strictly according to its meaning in France, and that the word hospice" in French was not equivalent in English. Under a The question to be determined on this summons, to "hospital" which is adjourned from Chambers, is, the meaning of the following bequest in the testator's will, which is written in the French language, viz. : French be quest "aux hospices de Londres:" Held, upon an de examination of "Je donne et lègue tous les objets et valeurs dont je n'ai pas disposé ci-dessus aux hospices de Paris et Londres, que j'institue à cet effet pour mes légataires universels." French autho rities, that all those institutions in Lon don were in In other words, the question I have to determine is, cluded in the (a) Reported 33 Beav. 384. bequest which what gratuitously received within their walls and provided for persons unable to take care of themselves, either from old age combined with poverty, infancy combined with neglect, from mental incapacity, or by reason of any bodily ailment not susceptible of cure. Held, consequently, that St. George's Hospital and the like, Christ's Hospital and other institutions for instruction, and the London dispensaries, were excluded from the benefit of the bequest. 1865. WALLACE V. ATT.-GEN. (No. 2.) what English institutions are included in the words "les hospices de Londres;" the same word is applied both to Paris and London, and must, in my opinion, receive the same interpretation, and, consequently, the words "hospices de Londres" must include such institutions as, if they were situated in Paris, would fall within the description of "les hospices de Paris." With respect to that portion of the bequest which relates to "les hospices de Paris," the question before me cannot arise, because, by the law of that country, all bequests in favor of charity are brought into one common fund, and applied by a central board termed "L'Administration de l'Assistance publique." It is not, in that country, competent for a testator to select one particular hospital or almshouse at Paris and give a bequest exclusively to that charity. If given, it belongs to the general fund, and the persons who administer it apply the proceeds as they think fit. The question therefore is confined to London institutions, and, in my opinion, only those institutions in London which, if they were situated in Paris, would be termed "des hospices" are entitled to share in the bequest. Having stated thus much, it is also proper to state, by way of preliminary remark, that, in my opinion, the fact that any institution in London is called "hospice" does not, of itself, give it any claim to be admitted; it must, in order to share in the bequest, fulfil the conditions of what is meant by the word "hospice" in French. The consequence of this opinion of mine is, that it is wholly unnecessary to consider, for the purpose of deciding this question, what institutions would fall within the meaning of the words "hospitals of London," unless it could be first established that the word "hospice" was accurately and precisely rendered in English by the word word "hospital." My opinion is, that the word "hospice" in French is not accurately an equivalent to the word "hospital" in English, and this relieves me therefore from the necessity of considering the extent of the meaning of the word "hospital," or its variation from former periods of time, when the word included almshouses and places of instruction, such as Christ's Hospital. On examining the meaning of the word "hospice," I find that, in all accurate writers, a distinction is made between "hospice" and "hopital." I do not, by this, mean to say that they are never used as equivalent expressions or nearly so, but that, in all the cases that I have been able to discover, especially where the discussion has been relating to charities, a marked distinction has been made between "les hospices" and "les hopitaux." In the reports and statements of accounts rendered annually by the "Administration générale de l'Assistance publique" this distinction is constantly and rigidly preserved. I have consulted a large number of them, and I find no instance in which, as it appears to me, these terms are applied indiscriminately. In the lists of bequests which accompany these accounts, I find that where donations are made to hospitals alone, the word "hospices" does not occur in the heading of the list; and where the bequests are to hospices and the hospitals are not included, the word 'hôpitaux” is excluded from the title. In one of them, that of the year 1849, which contains "Notes et renseignments sur les hôpitaux et hospices civils de la ville de Paris," rendered necessary apparently by the alteration produced by the revolution of 1848, occurs the 66 following 1865. WALLACE บ. ATT.-GEN. (No. 2.) |