Robertson v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1952] HCA 71

H. C. oF A.

1952. WY

ScHELLEN- BERGER v. TRUSTEES Exxcutors AND AGENCY Co. Lrp.

Dixon C.J. McTiernan J. Fullagar J.

HIGH COURT (1952.

Mr. Voumard's main argument for the next of kin was founded on a passage in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Lord Greene M.R., in Re Strakosch; Temperley v. Attorney- General (1). The gift in that case was of an entirely different character from that with which we are now concerned, but, in the course of the judgment, the Master of the Rolls found occasion to refer to the somewhat controversial case of Re Smith; Public Trustee v. Smith (2), in which a gift " unto my country England for —own use and benefit absolutely " (sic) was held by the Court of Appeal to be a charitable gift. In the course of the judgments in that case the line of cases cited above was discussed, together with the case in the House of Lords of Goodman vy. Saltash Corpora- tion (3), which is, of course, a leading case on the subject. The cases of Re Smith (2) and Goodman v. Saltash Corporation (3) had also been discussed by Lord Simonds in Williams' Trustees v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (4), in an opinion in which four other learned Lords concurred. In Re Strakosch (5) the Master of the Rolls, speaking for the Court, expressed the view that the reasoning which lay behind the cases was "that where general words are used such as to benefit such and such a parish or ' my country * the law will construe these words as restricted to benefits which are charitable in law " (6). His Lordship concluded :—'* If we are right in holding that the principle laid down is that general words that money is to be applied for the benefit of a district or a country are construed as meaning for such purposes as are recognised by the law as charitable purposes, the principle has no application here where the purpose is expressed " (7).