Trustees Records, Volume 2, 1854 (page 005)

5

instance where property was given in trust to repair a
chapel, a grave doubt was expressed as to the propriety
of expending any portion of the large accumulated in-
come in the fittings up of the Chapel. 1 Anstruther's
Reports ___ Attorney General vs. Foyster. And funds
for a "grammar school" (which means, in England,
technically, a school for instruction in English Greek
and Latin) cannot though amply sufficient, be ap-
plied to the support of instruction in the German
and French languages in connection with the other
branches. Attorney General vs. Earl of Mansfield, 2 Russell
513. And in this country the Administratrix of a
"good estate", though allowed to expend nearly $358.75
in funeral expenses, the principal part of which was
for a tombstone over his body, was not allowed a small
sum paid for the painting a portrait of the deceased.
14 Sery v. Rawle ___ McGlinsey's Appeal. Had this monu-
ment borne upon its side in bas relief the features
or figure of the deceased, there can be no doubt that it
would have been allowed.

Reasoning from the analogy of such decisions
we might well say that it by no means follows that
as a matter of course, that because you have properly
spent money for a Chapel in which Statues may be be-
comingly placed, you may go on to provide Statues for
the Chapel. The Chapel as one thing is complete, and the
purchase of statuary, if a proper application of the trust fund
at all, must be an independent and separate act and ex-
ercise of your power. It is worth noting here, that Judge
Story in 1843, in a written report on the subject of contem-