Jones v Williams
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1767 |
| Date | 01 January 1767 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 422
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See In re Christ Church Inclosure Act, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 531.
Case 318.-jones against williams. [1767.] [See In re Christ Church Inclosure Act, 1888, 38 Ch. D. 531.] Bequest ot £1000 by sale of lands, to be applied in water-works, for the use of the inhabitants of a town, is within the statute of mortmain. It is a public charitable use. (See Attorney-General v. Heelis, 2 S. & S. 67. British Museum v. White, ib. 594. Johnson v. Swann, 3 Madd. 457. Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. 542. Attorney-General v. Brown, 1 Swanst. 265, 297.) John Williams, by his will, taking notice, that the town of Chepstow was much in want of good spring water, and that there was a subscription some time since set on foot for bringing the same to the town, but by some misunderstanding was dropped, he gives £1000, to arise by sale of his real estate, for the purpose of bringing spring water from St. Arvans, or elsewhere, to the town of Chepstow, for the use of the inhabitants for ever, which is to be laid out by his trustees and executors in bringing the said water to the said town, and making conduits and reservoirs; and gives £200 if wanting, and directs a sum to be left in the Bank of England, or an estate bought with it which will bring in £10 a-year, to keep the water works in good order. Q. Whether void by the statute of mortmain 1 [652] Lord Chancellor. Definition of charity; a gift to a general public use, which extends to the poor as well as to the rich (Attorney-General1 v. Heelis, 2 S. & S. 76. British Museum v. White, ib. 596) : many instances in the statute 43 Eliz. carrying this idea, as for building bridges, &c. The' supplying of water is necessary as well as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neill v Commissioner of Valuation; Council of Alexandra College v Same
... ... One of the oldest definitions of charity is “a general public use which extends to the poor as well as to the rich”: Jones v. Williams ( 1 ). Again, the purposes I have described as ( c )—those under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 36—are undoubtedly charitable. Thus we have in ... ...
-
Chichester Diocesan Fund & Board of Finance (Incorporated) v Simpson
...though as Lord Macnaghten explained ( loc. cit.), it has a legal technical sense in English Law. But in 1767 Lord Camden L.C., in Jones v. Williams Amb. 651, defined it as a gift to a general public use which extends to the poor as well as the rich. In Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, 7 A.C. 63......
-
Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Company Ltd
...principle was reasserted. It is easy to state and has been stated in a variety of ways, the earliest statement that I find being in Jones v. Williams (1767), Ambler 651, in which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke is briefly reported as follows: "Definition of charity: a gift to a general public us......
-
Peggs v Lamb
... ... of law relating to charitable trusts was apparent from the judgments inIn re Christchurch Enclosure ActELR ((1888) 38 Ch D 520, 530); Williams Trustees v IRCELR ([1947] AC 447, 460) and IRC v BaddeleyELR ([1955] AC 572, 591). The point was that it was not enough that the trust should be for ... ...
-
Using the Wrong Policy Tools: Education, Charity, and Public Benefit
...a policy tool toredistribute educational advantages within society.50560 Re Resch, op. cit., n. 43, p. 544. See, also, Jones v. Williams (1767) Amb 651, 652;Oppenheim, op. cit., n. 37, p. 305.ß2012 The Author. Journal of Law and Society ß2012 Cardiff University Law MISCONCEPTION AS TO PUBLI......