The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-05-07 00:00:00

A SUFFICIENT " DESIGNATIO
PERSONS."

The case of " Lepine n Beau" has been before the
Master of the Rolls, and NVIIA a suit to administer the
trusts of a will, and the question was whether there
was a sufficient descriptio ptrsonrc to entitle an illegiti-
mate child to take under a bequest in favour of the
children of the testator, there being no legitimate
child. The testator bequeathed the bulk of his pro-
perty to his wife Margaret for life or widowhood, she
thereout maintaining and educating his children, and
upon her death or second marriage the fund was to be
divided among hiscbildren eqoally, or paid to his child,
if only one. Margaret, however, was not the testator's
wife, but was a person with whom he had lived for many
years, and by whom, at the date of his will, he had one
child living, and another was born subsequently to the
date of the will. The testator was a married than,
but was separated from his wife and had no legitimate
child. lie and Margaret were supposed by their
neighbours to he man and wife, and their children were
baptized by the clergyman of their parish as born in
wedlock. The question accordingly was whether upon
the death or marriage of Margaret (whose right to the
benefit of the bequest in the meantime was very
faintly contested) the child born before the date of the
will would be entitled to the fund, it being admitted
that the after-born chill could not take any share,
owing to the policy of the law, which renders void be.
quests in favour of future illegitimate children.
Mr. Colt appeared for the trustee of the will, by
whom the sun was instituted.

Mr. Miller, for Margaret and her child, contended
that the child hod acquired the reputation of being the
testator's child, and was sufficiently designated as such,
though not mentioned by name.
Mr. Hawkins, for the persons who would be entitled
if the bequest were void, contended that the gift bring
to children as a class must be intended to mean legi-
timate children.

The Master of the Rolls was of opinion that there
was a sufficient designatio personm. Suppose an un-
m irried man were to take the children of a f, iend, to
live with him and speak of them as his children, and
afterwards die, leaving a will in favour of his children,
would not that be a sufficient designation of his adopted
children? Of course, if he mulled afterwards and had
children of his own there would he a difference. Here
was a man living with a lady who bore his name and
was reputed to be his wife, mid whose children were
baptized by the clergyman of the parish as their law-
ful children. He made a will, calling the lady through-
out his wife, and disposed of the property in favour of
his children. He must have meant his children by her.
He meant all his children by her, but as the law will
not suffer the after-horn chihl to take, the result was
that the elder child took the whelk., subject to Mar-
gamed life interest; and there would be a declaration
that under the gift to his children the testator intended
the child born before the date of the will to take.