dence for the Commander-in-Chief, for communal use of a windmill, and 
for the erection and support of a school. Certain friends were named executors 
and guardians. 88 
In April, 1747, an information was filed in the Antigua Chancery Court 
by Attorney General Warner in behalf of the present and future legislatures 
against the executors of the will and others in possession of the realty thus 
devised. This information recited inter alia a 1700 local act for dividing uncultivated 
lands among disbanded soldiers and other impecunious settlers for 
promoting settlement, the testator's intention frequently expressed to devote 
his property to charitable uses, and his conviction that the 1700 act provided 
the most effectual means thereto. After reciting the will the bill declared that 
there was no means at common law to settle the charitable uses and that settlement 
could not be had under 43 Elizabeth, c. 4, for want of proper persons 
and officers. Therefore, the bill prayed a discovery of the property and that the 
charitable uses might be settled according to the intent of the testator. In their 
answers defendants insisted that the will was void in law and equity, that 43 
Elizabeth, c. 4, did not extend to Antigua and had not ever been so determined 
upon appeal, and that from its nature the statute was incapable of being extended 
or carried into force there. Therefore, the pretended devises could receive 
no force under that statute. After a hearing in January, 1750/1, it was 
decreed that the will was a good limitation and that the appointment to charitable 
uses was within the meaning and intent of the Statute of Charitable 
Uses. The defendants were thereupon ordered to convey specified lands and 
negroes to such person or persons or to such use or uses as should be appointed 
by the votes, resolves, or acts of the present or any future legislatures. Defendants 
thereupon prayed and were granted an appeal to the King in Council. 87 
This appeal and an appeal from a May, 1751, decree in the cause were entered 
early in 1752, but no hearing took place until February of the next year. 88 At 
the several hearings appellants urged inter alia that the devise was ineffectual, 
since nothing was expressly devised to the legislative houses. If making these 
bodies executors amounted to a devise, it was void for want of capacity in the 
devisees, since they were not corporate bodies able to take in succession. Since 
43 Elizabeth, c. 4, did not extend to Antigua, it was impossible to establish the 
devise as an appointment under the statute. 89 Respondent answered that this 
statute did extend to Antigua, since it was made prior to settlement and consequently 
was to be considered as carried to the colony by the first settlers, with 
the common and statute law then in force; further, that the will of testator 
80 See the "cases" of the parties (Add. MS, 
36,217/34-43). 
88 PC 2/102/432, 493; PC 2/103/117, 129, 
1 1°> 2 55> 3" 1 . 3 22 > 3 2 9- 
" Ibid. 
89 Case of Appellant (Add. MS, 36,217/34-37).