The judgment establishes the principle that bequests for the performance of masses and similar purposes may be void if they violate the rule against perpetuity and do not qualify as charitable purposes.

1. This appeal relates only to the sum of Rs. 28,000, part of the sum of Rs. 42,000 bequeathed by the testatrix Hosannah Arathoon to her granddaughter Maria Hosannah Chambers, afterwards Mrs. Supple, and her children, which sum of Rs. 28,000 in the event, which has happened, of Maria Hosannah Chambers dying without issue, testatrix directed should go and be added to the therein-before mentioned sum of Rs. 28,000, so that the income of the last-mentioned sum of Rs. 28,000 should be added to the income of the former Rs. 28,000 and be given to perpetual masses for the benefit of her (testatrixs) soul and for the souls in purgatory. The first point raised in appeal is that this sum of Rs. 28,000 does not form part of the estate of Hosannah Arathoon and therefore that the Administrator-General has nothing to do with it, because, by the settlement made upon the marriage of Maria Hosannah Chambers with Mr. Supple, the Government promissory note, then representing the sum of Rs. 42,000, of which this Rs. 28,000 is part, became vested in the trustees of that settlement upon the trusts thereby declared. We think there is nothing in this point. The settlement could only deal with the interest which Maria Hosannah Chambers took under the will and could not affect the dispositions of the will which were to take effect in the event of her dying without issue. The disposition of the sum of Rs. 42,000, in the events which have happened, is governed by the will and the Government promissory note representing that sum having through the proceedings in the equity suit got into the hands of the Administrator-General, he is right in asking the Court for directions as to its proper application under the will of his testatrix.

2. The other and most important question argued in this appeal is as to the validity of the gift over of this sum of Rs. 28,000 on the death of Maria Hosannah Chambers without issue. The point has been argued very fully by Counsel on both sides and a number of authorities bearing on the question have been cited. On a careful consideration of the arguments and the cases quoted, we must agree with the learned Judge in the Court below that the case is concluded by authority and that the bequest in question is void as violating the rule against perpetuity.

3. That a bequest for the performance of masses, according to the forms of the Roman Catholic religion, whether the masses be for the testators own soul or for souls generally, would be void if the case occurred in England, is admitted. The eases of West v. Shut tleworth 2 My. & K., 684, Heath v. Chapman 2 Drewry, 417, in re Blundells Trusts 30 Beav., 360 are sufficient authorities for that position. But it is argued for appellants that these and other analogous cases were decided upon the English law of superstitious uses which has no application to this country. West v. Shuttleworth 2 My. & K., 684 certainly was decided on the law of superstitious uses. There the testatrix gave legacies to certain Roman Catholic priests and chapels for the benefit of their prayers and masses for the repose of her soul and that of her husband. The Master of the Bolls, after quoting with approval the observation of Sir W. Grant in Cary v. Abbot 7 Ves., 490, that there was no statute making void superstitious uses generally and that the statute of Edward VI., related only to superstitious uses of a particular description then existing, goes on to say:--" The legacies in question are not therefore within the terms of the statute of Edward VI., but that statute has been considered as establishing the illegality of certain gifts; and, amongst others, the giving legacies to priests to pray for the soul of the donor has in many cases collected in Duke, been decided to be within the superstitious uses intended to be suppressed by that statute. I am therefore of opinion that these legacies to priests and chapels are void." The other cases following West v. Shuttleworth 2 My. & K., 684 seem also to