MISSIONS TO SEAMEN.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1831, 18 August 1913, Page 6

MISSIONS TO SEAMEN.

QUESTION OF CONTROL. SUPREME COURT DECISION. DECLARATION OF TRUST AMENDED, The'question of control of tho Missions to Seamen Trust Board was decided at tho Supreme Court on Saturday in a judgment given by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the case brought by Maiy Ann Williams, widow, of Wellington, against the Attorney-General, tho W. R. Williams Memorial for tho Missions to Seamen Trust Board, and. tho committee of the Missions' to Seamen Society. His 'Honour, in delivering judgment, said' that this was an- action to rectify a voluntary declaration "of trust. Plaintiff purchased a parcel of land in Wellington, and before s'he took the transfer sho and four others formed a body under the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trust Boards IncoTporation'Act, 1881, called the W. R. Williams Memorial for the Missions to Seamen Trust Board. That board did not seem to have had any Articles of Memorandum or Deed of Settlement, except tho form mentioned in tho schedule to tho Act; and except so far as its name may' disclose its object, there was no declaration as to its purposes and object. The plaintiff erected a building on tho land in question, and on the opening of tine building, what purported to be a declaration, of trust was prepared and signed. That declaration purported to be a'declaration of trust by tho W. R. Williams Memorial for the Missions to Seamen Trust Board. The document was not, however, under seal, and under the Act deeds ma/ be made by any board under its common seal. Further, the property was the property of the plaintiff, though, with her consent and by her direction, the property had been conveyed to the board; As she was the benefieial ■ owner, she had to. execute a declaration of trust in writing, as provided by Section 7 of tihe Statute of Frauds. , The complaint of plaintiff was that that declaration of trust was not Vliat' sho meant to declare, olid, particularly, that tbero was one omission in it'of jpreat importance, and that consequently she signed it under a mistake. Clauses (1) and (2) of tlio document read: —"(l) That the said laud, with-the buildings thereon, are held by the vv. K. Williams Memorial for tho Missions to Seamen Trust.Board, and by us, the trustees of such board, upon trust for the use and benefit of'soan»n, and upon trust to permit the Missions to Seamen, to manage and control the said building and to regulate the uso thereof by seamen during such ti»io as the Missions to Seamen shall carry on its work arid conduct its religious services in the building now 'erectedl upon tho said land, - upon Christian Protestant Evangelical lines or methods. (2) In tno event of tho Missions to Seamen tailing to conduct its religious services upon Christian Protestant Evangelical lines, or failing to'-.'appoint U missioner who shall hold' the Christian Protestant Evangelical faith, and who shall conduct the services held in the said building upon Christian Protestant Evangelical lines, then the saul Trust Board sjhall be at liberty to tako awax the management and control of tho said building from the Missions to Seamen, and to itself manage and control tho same through -tlio trustees for the time being <•! the board, or to entrust the management and control of the said building to such persons, body of persons* or corporation engaged in ministering to the spiritual, moral, and intellechicl 'well-being ot eeanicn n-9 the boarrd may think fit. Provided always that the spiritual teaching and cervices conducted m tho said building shall be Christian, Protestant and Lvon- " It was asked that after the words "durin# such time as" in Gl-ausc (1) tho words "Wie.said Jame3 Moore shall bo the nnfr siouer of tho said society at the port ci Wellington and" be inserted (though the insertion of these words was not insisted on at the hearing), and that the following words be inserted at the end of Clause (1): ,"'And during such time as tho missioner appointed bv the Missions to Seamen shall have the approval ot' the trustees for the time' being, as a fit and prop™ person to superintend the said management and control of tlio said building, bavins "Swl "to the fcrnsfc upon which the said biuia* in? is held by the board"; and the commencement of Clause (-) the following words be inserted: "In;the event of tho missioner appointed by -the saul "Missions to Seamen have or retain the approval of the trustees for the time being 1 as a fit and proper .person to superintend tho. sftiri management ana control of tho said buildm ? as aforesaid or " ' The words asked to be inserted at tho end cf-'Clnuse (1) were in the original draft of tho Declaration of-Trust, and were struck out, Mr. Brown, who was the solicitor concerned, a member of the board, and also a member of the Missions lo Seamen Society Committee stated: I am absolutely satisfied that the present deed does not represent the real intention of the donor." TK however, «** in cross-examination: When she signed the deed she luiow the words struck out of the. draft were'not m the deed as she signed it. She must have known-, bu I did not see her sign tlio deed. It appeared that the draft deed with the word* that were afterwards omitted was read over to tho trustees. There was «

conflict. of testimony as to what then 'took place. The Bw, M'- Gl'*"™ raid ft at the position Mr. Moor*-who wag tli a then missionar—was to occupy W discussed; ami that the, plaintiff wanted Hlv.'- jloore 'to have a 1-if* appointment, ami that provisions to that effect show.d he' inserted in the deed. That agreed 1 with the evidence, of Mr. Mcwe- Mr. . Brown said that Mr. Glasson objected to the clause, as lie did net wish to bo a partv to the approving of a new missioner. TU=" TTonoiir .wa.s of opinion that when, plaintiff rented to and signed the deed, it. was not contained to her. She did not understand that the trustees were to have n., control in the anointment 'of the missioner. In fact, the plaintiff thought slie was to have a control greater even than 'the inysrtioft of the cuuis© omitted would have given her. There was 110 witness whose evidence contradicted or weakened the testimony ct the witness called fo.r the plaintiff. The defendant.-., the 'Society for the Missions to Seamen, were not parties to or connected with the declaration of Trust. That was not, therefore, the case of asking for the rectitication of a .deed hecauso of a mwtnal mistake. The' questions were: Was there a. declaration of trust, made by the Weficial owner of tho property? And, if" so, was the document signed the document' the donor meant to sign? It was clear from the evidence that the ulnintiff intended -to pive the nse of the land and building to the Missions to Peamen for the benefit. of seamen. What tho plaintiff ithought was provided for in t.h" document she sirnied was as follows: (1) That {he Society cf the Missions to R»amon was to carry on its wotlt and conduct it-' relidoiu services in t'>e "building 'upon Christian Protectant Evangelical lines or methods; (2) that the deed contained tho clause already emoted from the draft, that the Board of Trustees wen? to have the riVht of approving of five missioner; and that if the terms of tlia triist were not fulfilled, tho use" and the control of the building were to revert to the hoard. All that was asked was that there be inserted in the Declaration of Trust such clauses as would entry out that intention. During the hearing of th«' ciiso the question was ra.ised as to whether that document was a Declaration of Trust l>v the plaintiff at nil. It purported to he not a Declaration of Trii=t bv her. hut a declaration hy the .of the board. The instalment assigned 'was'not binding on the board, for it T5" n " not execute! as the. Act required. Was it binding on Mrs. Williams? He had srrave doubts whether it was. She signetl it acting as one of the trustees of the board and'not as the donor Auothei nivestion also arose; Tf sho as donor signed a declaration of trust winch wns no I the declaration of that sho meanl to sign, and if sho signed it not Knowing wlwt was in it omitted from il wns i't in any sense binding on her? A 9, however, plaintiff wps content- tc agree to tho recliiicotkm of the* a. 4 amended bv .tlw insertion of the elans-' pontninod in tho original draft nnd M tho further words mentioned in t.h* prayer of the statement of elaini to e_jji'r\ these omitted words .into offset,- his Hon our. said ho would orcW that tlir wholo dood bo set aside. Ho was o] ..oninion, therefore. that ho should amonc

tho declaration of trust as prayed by the plaintiff. Scom;* that the Society of tho Missions fo Seamen iveie not to Maine for the form of the document, each party was ordered to pay its own costs. Mr. C. Skerrett, K.C., and Mr. 1. Neavo appeared for tlio plaintiff, and Mr. 'I'. I'. Martin represented tho defendants. The effect of this judgment is that the society have to .submit the nanio of tlioir nominated to Mi's, \\ illiauis and tlie other, trustees for their approval, and if .Mrs. AYilliains does not approve of tho missioncr they appoint they will have no right to occupy the premises.