REG. v. STEVENS. [ *492 ] licensor), and the appellants (called the licensees), the said licensor granted unto the licensees full licence to use all that building lately erected at Aldershot, known as the gas establishment, together with all the outbuildings, offices, plant, &c., the meter and meter-house being excepted during the term of seven years for the purpose of enabling the licensees to fulfil a contract entered into for supplying gas at Aldershot. "And it also being the true intent of these presents and the parties hereto, that these presents shall not be a lease, or an agreement for a lease, or in the nature of a lease or of an agreement for a lease, and that neither by these presents nor by reason of any act or thing to be done, suffered, or omitted by the licensor or his successors or otherwise on behalf of her Majesty, or by the licensees, their executors or administrators, or any of them, the licensees shall have any term or interest whatsoever in the gas premises, or in any part thereof, or be or become actually or constructively vested in the licensees, their executors or administrators, or any of them, nor shall they or any of them be or become tenants or tenant of the gas premises or any part thereof." The licence then contained certain restrictions as to the use of the premises by the licensees, and certain powers to the licensor to enter upon the premises. The licence then contained this proviso: "That the licence hereby granted shall be revocable and determinable by the licensor or his successors at any time by writing under his or their hand or hands delivered to the licensees, their executors or administrators." And it was also provided, "That immediately upon the revocation of the licence hereby granted . . may immediately . . without bringing or instituting, or being obliged to bring or institute any action of ejectment or other proceeding at law or in equity, resume and take full and complete possession of the gas premises for the use of her Majesty, &c." Giffard, Q.C. (Gates with him) appeared in support of the order of Sessions, and contended that the appellants were liable as actual occupiers, for that, until the will of the Crown was determined by notice, they had *possession of the premises, and that it mattered not that they occupied only under what was termed a licence. (COCKBURN, Ch. J.: It is clear that, until the Crown gave notice, the appellants could not be dispossessed.) Hayes, Serjt. (C. B. Russell with him) was called upon, and he argued that, as the Crown had the right to use the premises for certain purposes, and its officers to enter upon them at any time, and it was only a licence which was granted, the appellants could not be said to have such an occupation as would render them liable to be assessed to the poor rate. (COCKBURN, Ch. J.: We must look at the whole instrument, and its effect is that the Crown has permitted the appellants to have possession, reserving to its officers a power to go upon the premises for certain purposes. Does this amount to anything else than a tenancy at will? The object may have been to prevent the appellants from being in a position to render an ejectment necessary to turn them out. The real question is, whether or not there is an exclusive occupation ?) They refuse to make them tenants. COCKBURN, Ch. J. : Just construe the deed with reference to its object. It is quite inconsistent to suppose that the Crown could use these premises itself for this purpose. There is an express provision showing that the Crown cannot put out the appellants without notice. It is not necessary to decide whether there is a tenancy or not, for there is clearly an occupation. CROMPTON, J. : A licence to use is a liberty to occupy. It is not like a licence to use an incorporeal hereditament. They say that the licence is not to operate as a lease, but that you shall have the premises till we do an act which is to put an end to it. That, therefore, gave the possession. BLACKBURN and SHEE, JJ. concurred. REG. V. STEVENS. Judgment for the respondents. 1865. May 11. Lord WESTBURY, L.C. Lord CRANWORTH. [ 805] [ *806 ] IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. ANDERSON v. WRIGHTS OF GLASGOW. (12 L. T. N. S. 805–808.) The W. charity was founded in 1600 for the benefit of a trade or guild, and its object was to apply its funds to the common charges and for the support of poor and decayed brethren of the craft. In 1857 a benevolent testator left large funds to endow the B. Institution for the gratuitous board and education of boys not lame, with a view to fit them for industrial occupations, but on condition that buildings should be supplied for the purpose. The W. charity in 1857 subscribed 1007. of its fund to raise a building for the B. Institution, which gave them a right to have three boys educated and maintained there for ever afterwards : Held, that the subscription by the W. charity was for the *general benefit of the W. charity, and therefore was not a misapplication of the funds. Where charity funds are appropriated to the support of certain poor brethren, it is not necessary that each and all of the brethren be equally benefited by the funds, and a benefit to the children of some brethren is a general benefit to the whole brethren. THIS was an appeal from a decree of the Court of Session in Scotland as to the alleged misapplication of the funds of a charity. The suit was brought by the appellant, to have it declared that certain payments to another charitable institution were illegal. The Incorporation of Wrights in Glasgow are an ancient corporation of the trade of carpenters founded in the sixteenth century. The charter set forth the reasons of the incorporation as follows: "Therefore, we, following forth your Lordship's interlocutor in the causes above written, and for the loving of God Almighty, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the common weal of this good town, and the profit of all and sundry our Sovereign Lord's lieges repairing thereto, and for the support and help of our poor decayed brethren of craft failed in goods, both present and to come, and for relief and sustaining of a part of our common charges laid or to be laid upon our said craft, we desire that we may have these articles, statutes and rules following, given and granted to us by your Lordship's authority, whereby good rule and guiding may be among us and our successors of the said craft, both masters and servants, in time to come, for the common weal of the town and setting forward of us and our said brethren, and avoiding of confusion and inconveniences which in times by-past have been to our disprofitnamely, by sumptuous banquets which each freeman of our craft was wont to make at their entry and upset of their booths, which we are willing to remit and discharge as unprofitable in time coming, and alter the same into money, which will be less than they spended before, to be bestowed upon our common charges, and for support of our poor decayed brethren of craft, and to avoid plurality and multitude, which create confusion." The charter then set forth various articles and statutes providing for entry money and weekly payments, which were declared to be for the support of the poor and charges foresaid. Then there was power to make bye-laws as follows: "As also, that the said deacon and masters of craft, with the advice of the best and worthiest of the same craft, shall have power to make acts and statutes for their own craft, for the common weal and profit of the said burgh and city, and support of their poor decayed brethren in all time coming, as behoves and becomes them to do." In pursuance of this power to make bye-laws, a general meeting of the incorporation, held in 1849, passed certain bye-laws. The first article of these bye-laws was as follows: "The funds of the Incorporation of Wrights shall be exclusively appropriated to charitable and benevolent purposes, and principally in giving pecuniary aid to indigent members, and the widows and orphans of members; and it shall not be lawful to break up or dissolve this incorporation, or to divert its funds from these their legitimate objects." In 1857 Mr. James Buchanan, a native of Glasgow, by a codicil to his last will and testament, bequeathed legacies to a very large amount to charitable and benevolent purposes within that city. Among others, he bequeathed to the city of Glasgow 3,000l. annually for ten years, for the purpose of carrying into active operation an industrial institution in the city of Glasgow for the maintenance and instruction of destitute children, on the following conditions: "1. That the city of Glasgow shall provide, fit up, and keep in repairs, at the expense of the city, the necessary buildings for carrying on the institution in all its branches; 2. That the said 3,000l. shall be exclusively appropriated and expended on the maintenance, education, and industrial instruction of destitute boys. But should this experimental institution be found not to work successfully on the lapse of ten years, and that it should be considered advisable by the directors to abandon it and carry it on no longer, in that case the whole expense which may have been incurred by the city from its formation to be reimbursed from my trust estate." The testator then said the charity was for the benefit of all sects and denominations; the institution was to be conducted distinct from the hospital system; the pupils to be allowed to reside with their friends, provided they were approved by the directors; that no cripple or deformed boy be admitted as a pupil; that the pupils attending be provided daily with a substantial breakfast, dinner and supper in the house, with instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but that no high branch of education be publicly taught thereat. Besides these branches of education, the pupils to be instructed in the rudiments of navigation, gymnastics, tailoring, shoe-making and carpentry, to fit them for the navy and army, the merchant-marine service, and as emigrants to the colonies. The institution to be ANDERSON v. WRIGHTS OF ANDERSON managed by the magistrates of Glasgow and trades' houses. And WRIGHTS OF if the institution should prove successful at the end of ten years, v. GLASGOW. the whole expense incurred by the city should be reimbursed from his trust estate; and if the grant should not be accepted by the said city on the terms and conditions specified, then it should be offered to the towns of Liverpool, Manchester, and New York. By this will the Wrights' Incorporation had the right of electing three members as directors of the Buchanan Institution. The money required to build the Buchanan Institution was proposed in 1858 to be raised by subscription. In December, 1858, a meeting of the Wrights' Incorporation was held, at which they recommended the payment of a sum of 100l. to assist in paying the expenses of providing the building. At a subsequent meeting, in January, 1859, the majority of the meeting were of opinion that it would be illegal to divert the funds in this way, and so the motion was negatived; but at a later meeting, in April, 1859, this resolution was rescinded, and the motion to give 100l. was carried by a small majority. The minority protested, and alleged that the vote was illegal also, as not having been come to in the manner provided by the bye-laws. Moreover, it was a sum that could not be afforded, except by paying away part of the capital of the charity. Soon afterwards the minority applied for an injunction to prevent the payment of the 100l. in question. In the answers the incorporation stated that by immemorable usage it had been their practice to vote from time to time by general meetings a part of their funds to charitable and benevolent purposes; that the present appropriation of the fund was in conformity with the purpose of the charity; and there were now three boys who had been admitted to the Buchanan Institution whose support would far exceed the interest of the 100l. voted by the Wrights' Incorporation. The Court of Session by their decree held that, having regard to the character and objects of the institution called the Buchanan Institution, and the constitution of the Incorporation of Wrights, and the state of the funds, the contribution in question was not illegal, and not unreasonable or excessive; and also found that no valid objection founded on the bye-laws or otherwise had been stated to the procedure by which the contribution was proposed, considered and adopted. The plaintiff now appealed against that decree. Rolt, Q.C., Anderson, Q.C. and Wotherspoon, for the appellant, contended that it was a breach of trust to apply the funds of the charity to such a purpose as the support of the Buchanan Institution. Such an outlay would not benefit the poor brethren, for it was only those who had children and who had boys not lame who could |