134
THE GREEN BAG
in the estimation of those well acquainted with her the court did not consider as a defense to the action but merely as mitigation of the damages. This problem is one that is bound to come before the courts oftener in these days of pictorial journal ism. But the opinion in the above case does not discuss the different considerations with sufficient thoroughness to make it of permanent value as a precedent in other courts. The only recorded liti gation of the same kind hitherto known to us is a suit by Detective Porteous against the Cosmopolitan Magazine, in New York, December, 1885, but we never saw any disposition of it in the Court of Appeals. J. H. w. TRUSTS. (Cy-pres.) N. Y. (Sup. Ct.) — A case involving the distribution of a trust fund, which perhaps derives the greatest interest from the fact that it involves the proper distribution of the remains of the funds collected for the sufferers from the Slocum disaster, is that of Loch v. Mayer, 100 N. Y. Supp. 837, decided by the Special Term of the New York Supreme Court. The case is, however, also of legal interest in that it involves the application of the cy-pris doctrine. As will be recalled, a large fund was collected for the suf ferers from the Slocum disaster. Of this fund only about one-fourth was expended for the relief of sufferers, leaving in the hands of the relief com mittee nearly three-fourths of the amount col
lected — over $9,000. The trustees brought this action for instructions as to the disposition of the money remaining in their possession. St. Mark's Lutheran Church intervened as a claimant to the fund. As will be recalled, the disaster happened to an excursion arranged by said church. All doubt on the question has been removed by Laws N. Y. iqoi, p. 751, c. 291, wherein it is pro vided that the Supreme Court shall have control over gifts in all cases provided for by section 1 of the Act, and that when it appears that circum stances shall have so changed since the execution of the instrument containing a gift or grant to reli gious, charitable or benevolent purposes, as to render a literal compliance with the terms of the instrument impracticable, the court may direct that such gifts shall be administered in such manner as will most effectively accomplish the purpose of such instrument, but that no such order shall be made and enacted within twenty-five years after the exe cution of such instrument, or without the consent of the donor or grantor, if living. In view of this enactment it was held that the trustees should continue to administer the fund, for the relief of individual sufferers from the Slocum disaster need ing financial assistance, and that moneys not so expended should be added to the fund and kept until the expiration of twenty-five years, when the application for instructions as to the disposition of the fund might be renewed.
