The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-05-09 00:00:00

" BETHELL v. ABRAHAM."

The late Lord Westbury's will has again been before
the Law.court in the above case. On the occasion of
the present Lord Westbury's marriage, the testator
secured to his daughter in-law an annuity of £4OO
during his life, and covenanted that he would by his
will direct his executors to invest in such secunties,
and luesuch manner, and with such powers of variation
and transissiition as he should express, the sum of
.rlO,OOO, without Raying at what time, or forwhose bene-
fit, or in whose names. By his will the testator gave
an annuity of £2,000 to his daughter-in-law during five
years from the day of his death, for the maintenance
of herself, her husband, and children, and at the ex-
piration of the five years he gave to her and her
children the sum of £lO,OOO, upon the trusts and for
the purposes of the settlement made on her husband's
marriage, and directed his trustees to invest another
sum of 1:50,000, and pay the interest to his daughter-
in-law, during the joint lives of herself and her hus-
band, for the support of themselves and their children.
On a former occasion it was decided that the direc-
tions of the will as to the payment of the £lO,OllO
did nut relieve Lady Westburv's trustees from the
obligation of requiring immediate payment of the
£lO,OOO payable underthe settlements, and the question
now was whether Lady Westbury was entitled to in-
terest on that sum from the day of the testator's death
as well as to the I:2,000 annuity.

Mr. Fry, Q.C., and Mr. Everitt, for the plaintiffs,
submitted that, whether La.ly Westbury took the
I." 2,000 annuity beneficially or as trustee for herself
and her family—a point which they did not ask the
Court to determine—her interest in it, at all events,
was greater than £4OO a year, and so must be re-
garded as a satisfaction of the interest on the £lO,OOO.

Mr. Southgate, (IX., and Mr. Kekewich (for Lady
Westbury) said there was no evidence of intention on
the part of the testator and nothing more than the
barest conjecture of a probability, that he meant in-
terest on the £lO,OOO not to be payable; and submitted
that Lady Westbury was entitled to it.

Mr. Roxburgh, Q.C. (for Lord Westbury), took no
pan in the argument..

Mr. Fry, having replied,
The Master of the Rolls said he had done his best to
come to a conclusion as the meaning of this exceedingly
difficult will, and had done SO with exceedingly great
hesitation, as he was of °Olds' that he was about to
go further in favour of the presumed intention than
the Court had ever yet gone. He had not been asked
to decide, and he need not decide, the difficult and
important question what was the exact nature of
Lady Westbury's interest under the gift to her
for the maintenance of herself and her hushathi
and children; hut, if that gift were fiduciary,
it was clear that her beneficial interest in it must
be worth at least £4OO a year. This being F., and look-
ing at the general scope and objeet .4 the will, he
thought the meaning of the testator to have been this,
namely—" I ~we my daughter-in-Liw awl her children
£lO,OOO, payable immediately on my death. I do not
want it to be paid for five years, but 1 give them a
very considerable income in the meantime, awl at the
end .4 the five years they shall have the £10,000." He
should, therefore, hold that the 1.1,000 a year must
abate by the interest of the 4:10.000---in other w:irds,
that Lady Westbury was entitled to £2,000 a year
only until the expiration of the five years.