On the other hand in re Mariett (1018, 2 Eh. Div, 284) where a testa-for bequeathed a sum of money to Governing Body of Aldenham School for the purpose of building five courts and a smaller sum upon trust {0 use the interest to provide a prize for some event in the schools sports. every year, and the school Itself was. charity with the Statute of Ellzabeth, it was held that both legacies were valid charitable bequests, It Doing essential Ina school of this description that there should be ort Ganised games as part of the daily Foutine. Similarly in Re Gray, Todd.
Taylor, (1925, 1 Eh, 962) a testator fave two sums of money to form the huclous of a regimental fund "for the Promotion of sport," and it was held that the gifts were for the purpose of promoting the physical efficiency of the army, and were valid charity able gifts. The distinction between these last two cases and In re Nottage was thus explained by Romer J.: "It ig said that the object of the testator was merely to encourage sport, If that were so the gifts would no doubt be given on trusts which were not charitable: see In re Nottage, where a gift for purposes. of encouraging yacht racing was held not to be a charitable legacy. But in my opinion it was not the object of the testator in the present ease to encourage or pro-ote cither sport in general or any sport in particular. T think that it Was his intention to benefit the offic fers and men of the Carabiniers by diving them an opportunity of in-Gulging in healthy sport, indulgence in which might reasonably be supposed to encourage physical effcifancy. This case, therefore, does not within in re Notte Here the position is shortly this:
1916, the then members of the thorized their committee to transfer the fund to the trustees for the purpose declared in the deed and definitely, so Mr. Anderson avers, deprived the Club of the fund for ever. It was not their intention, how-fever, as was suggested at the hearing fof this summons, to divest themselves ff all interest in the fund but only fof all other uses of it. They still purposed to derive advantage from it by way of prizes for their races: to benefit themselves in that one Particular way. Then, in 1933, the members found themselves of a different mind and resolved to date the fund and apply it towards the. acquisition of headquarters at Minghong: they, and presumably the resent members, wish to make Other use of it. Can they legally do so? Upon the authorities which have cited, T have come to the conclusion that the trust, uso far as the provision of prizes and other benefit to the Club is concerned, is not charitable. "As regards the gift over, a charitable trust which may, but need not, take effect within the time allowed by the rule against perpetuities is void unless the prior: vold and I must answer both questions in the affirmative,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.