Liston v Keegan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 28 January 1882
• Date: 28 January 1882
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

M. R.

LISTON

and

KEEGAN.

Sims v. Quinlan 16 Ir. Ch. R. 191; on app. 17 Ir. Ch. R. 43.

v. Cox 3 Ir. Ch. R. 231.

— Monastic bodies — Society of St. Vincent de Paul — Trust for church belonging to such body — Void bequest.

Vot. IX.] ' CHANCERY DIVISION. 53I LISTON v. KEEGAN. Roman Catholic Relief Act, 10 Geo. 4, c. 7-Monastic bodies-Society of St. Vincent de Paul-Trust for church belonging to such body-Void bequest M. R. 1881. Nov. 28. Dec. 7. 1882. The prohibition of monastic bodies in the Roman Catholic Relief Act Jan. 28. applies to such bodies as settled in the realm after the passing of the Act as well as to those who were then residing in it : Reid, therefore, that a trust for the benefit of a church belonging to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, who came to Ireland in 1838, having left it in 1690, and who are bound by religious or monastic vows, is void. THOMAS BEGLAN, by his will, bequeathed the residue of his personal estate to the Rev. Nicholas Joseph Barlow, of PhibsÂborough Roman Catholic church, in the county of Dublin, absolutely, but upon a secret trust for the benefit of that church. Mr. Barlow was a member of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, and in the administration of the testator Thomas Beglan's estate, for which the suit was brought, the Court, by a decree of the 24th of May, 1881, declared that the Defendant Laurence Keegan, the executor of the Rev. N. J. Barlow, deceased, was not entitled to any portion of the fund in Court representing the legacy bequeathed by the testator to the said N. J. Barlow, the Court being of opinion that the said N. J. Barlow took the said bequest upon a secret trust, to apply same for the benefit of the Roman Catholic chapel at Pl,ibsborough ; and having regard to the terms of such trust, and the next-of-kin of the testator so requiring, the following further inquiries were directed :-1. An inquiry whether the Phibsborough Roman Catholic chapel is a church or chapel of the Vincentian Order, or of any other and what order. 2. An inquiry what is the constitution of the order to which the church or chapel belongs. 3. An inquiry whether the Vincentian or other order to which such church or chapel belongs is an order bound by religious or monastic vows. The inquiry was held before the MASTER OF THE ROLLS, and. the Rev. John M'Bride, was examined. 2 X 2 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. The material parts of his evidence and the proceedings in the suit are stated in the judgment. Mr. P. F. White, Q. C., and Mr. _Richard Adams, for the DefenÂdant the Rev. J. M'Bride :- They contended, on the evidence before the Court-1st. That the church was not the property of the Vincentian Order ; originally it was a chapel of ease in the parish of St. Paul, and although much enlarged and improved, it still bore that character; for if the order left Phibsborough they would be bound to give up the church to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, from whom they derived their title, under the deed of the 11th of May, 1854. 2dly. The Vincentian Order was not " a religious comÂmunity or society bound by religious or monastic vows." It was not a religious society-which meant the monastic orders bound by monastic vows-that is, by vows of obedience, chastity, and. poverty. The Church of Rome divided their clergy into two bodies, the regular and the secular. The Vincentians were secular priests, and although they made ecclesiastical vows, they took the vows according to the rules of their respective orders-e. g., the regular or religious orders could not inherit property for the benefit of their order-the Vineentians could and do inherit for the benefit of themselves. The prohibition in the 28th and 29th sections of the 10 Geo. 4, c. 7, taking them together, is directed against the regular or religious orders, Jesuits and "such religious orders," not against the secular orders which were aptly compared. to a club of gentlemen associated with a particular object, and that is their legal status. That distinguished this case from Sims v. Quinlan (1). The prohibition was directed against Jesuits and such religious orders as were then resident in the United Kingdom, to make provision for their gradual suppression, and cannot apply to this order, which had left Ireland after the siege of...