The Express.
London, England, 1851-01-11 00:00:00

RAW iintenigence.

EQUITY COUR,TB.—YEsrnRDAT.
8C3,0111 TIM LOAD CHANCT.LLOR.
lit'llt4lolB OF TBZ COURT.
. . . .

Mr. Molt asked it bie lordship would continua to hear the
cause petitions. There were 12 In the paper of the day.
The Lord Chancellor said he believed tomorrow (this
day) the first day of term, mu a day usually appropriated to
motions, and be proposed to adhere strictly to the former
practice of the court in bearing matters.
Mr. Rolt suggested that it would be more satisfactory to
all parties, and more conducive to the dv.patch of business,
if three or more days were costinuously appropriated to: a
class of cues. _

Mr. Mallon Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Lee made o:nervations
to the lame effect.

The Lord Chancellor said that course appeared to bin to
be the better course, and he would confer with the registrar
about it.

Bums Loy) Ci woani (VIC/iCuANceu.oa).
IN Tut MATTED OF THI TlllidTS OP TIM WILL OF
.LANES ROSS, AND IN Till MATTES UP THE TUUSTEIS
RELIEF ACT.
. _

The testator, by his will, dated in September, 1824, be-
queathed a sum of 3,0001. Three per Cent. Consols, upon
truer, to pay and apply the annual interest thereof tint,
his wife, Ann It us, for and during her li.e, for her sole and
separate use, iadependent of any husband she might there-
, after marry, and of his control, debts, and engagements ; and
her receipt, notwithstanding her coverture, to be a sufficient
discharge to the trustees. And the testator directed that the
3,0001. Three per Cent. Consols 'tusk should remain during
his wife's life, and be, under the orders of the trustees, a duly
administered provision for her, and the interest of it given
to her, on her personal app ce and receipt, by any
benters to be appointed by the trustees, in London or else-
where as might suit the parties, by half-yearly iostalments
of trti. each. After the death of the testator hie widow
married a second husband, and during her second coverture
assigned her interest in the dividends of the 3,0001. Consols
as security for certain annuities gr toted by her second has-
band and herself to the petitioner. The second husband
having died, the widow contended that the suignment by
her to the petitioner was void, on the ground that the words
of the bequest to her amounted to a restraint upon her
power of anticipation, The trustees having paid the fund
iiito court under the act, Mr. fLuthgate now appeared in
support of a petition presented by the assignee of the divi.
deeds for payment thereof to him during the life of the
widow.

Mr. Betbell and Mr. T. S. Clark, for the widow, contended
that by the terms of the be quest the widow was deprived of
all power of arricipatics the fund pending her second cover-
tur. For this purpose the words ° restrained from antici-
pation" were not essential; but wherever it appeared that
the trust was connected with some direction, as the appear-
ance of the lady in this case, which could be observed by the
legatee alone, that would be suflici-nt to impose a restriction
upon the po•er of anticipation. Ilere there was &direction
as to the payment and receipt which could not be observed
in acrother way than by payment into the hands of the lady
herself.

Mr. C. C. Ittrkeley appiered for the trustees.
His Lordship said that upon the authorities he had no
doubt upon the present question. When this court first
sanctioned the creation of a separate interest in a wife, it
was thought material so see that the interest so given was
really intended to be enjoyed by the wife in exclusion of the
husband, and the court would not bold such an iuttrest to
have been created without words taatamcunt to exclusion
of the hushed. Thu., it was held that a Rift for the abso-
lute use of the wile was not sufficient. Thus arose the
separate use clause, in which words showing that the hus-
band was to be excluded. as that his receipts ebould not be
a sufficient discharge, or that the wife's receipts alone should
be sufficient, or o her words clearly showing an intention to
exclude the husband were required. The court having thus
permitted the creation of this equitable iaterest in the wife,
nevertheless held that this interest was one to which the
ordinary rights of property were incident. Tae wife there-
fore might alienate. Then there arose in Lord Thurlew's
time, the question whether the wife could by any means be
deprived of that right. The discuesion of that question had
resulted in the establishment of the well known clause
artainet anticipation. Lord Cottenham, in • late case, had
been re/sus:wit as retying that the words `‘ without power
of anticipatioc," were necessary for the validity •f the
clause. He (his lordship) agreed with Mr. Bethell, in
holding that an expression to the effect that a
particular form of words was necessary, never could
have fallen from Lord Cottenham. He knew of
nothing in the law except, perhaps, some forms of
limitation of feudal or.gin, in which a particular form of
words was essential for the purpose of carrying out a parti-
cular intentiou. Any words clearly indicating such inten-
tion were all that could possibly be require& What Lord
Cottenham must have said was, that a restriction upon an-
ticipation could be isnp..sed only by words which could have
no other meaning. The question, then, was whether
the words in the present clause could or could not have
any other meaning than • direction in restraint of antici-
patios. New it had over and over again been decided
that a directit n that the receipt of the wile alone should be
a sufficient discharge, or that payment should be made into
her own proper hands was not of itself sufficient to prevent
a jenation. Then did the w ords requiring the personal pre-
sence of the lady in the present case make any difference?
He thought not, but that such presence was implied in a
direction to pay into her proper hands, which had already
been decided to be no bar to her power of alienation. The
prayer of the petition must, therefore, be granted. The costa
of all parties to be peid out of the fund