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

IN RE WILL OF JAMES ROSS, AND TUE TRUSTS ACT.

The testator by his will, made in 1824, gave a sum of
3,000/. Consols to trustees upon trust for Ann, his wife,
for her separate use, independently ot any husband she
might afterwards marry; and he directed that the sum
should remain during her life under the direction of the
trustees a duly administered provision for his said wife,
and the interest thereof paid to her on her personal ap-
rx,arauce and receipt by any bankers in London or
elsewhere whom the trustees might appoint, as should
be convenient to the parties, by half-yearly payments of
45/. each. The widow married a second husband, and
during the life of her second husband assigned her in-
terest in the 3,0001. Consuls by way of security for an-
nuities which the second husOntni had granted. The
husband died, nod the trustees transferred the sum into
court under the Act. The petition was presented by
the assignee under the security for payment ot the divi-
dends to him during the life of the widow.
Mr. Southgate was for the petitioner.
Mr. BF.THELL and Mr. TiroistAs SYDENHAM CLARKE,
fur the widow, contended that the of act of the directions
that the half-yearly payments should be made on the
personal appearance of the widow was equivalent to an
express clause against anticipation, and that the aliena-
tion or attempted alienation during the second coverture
was invalid.
Mr. Berkeley was for the trustees.

His LORDSHIP said he had, no doubt whatever as to
the rights of the parties in this case. The Court, in es-
tablishing the doctrine as to the separate interests of
married women, had required to }so perfectly satisfied
that the intention of the settler or donor was, that the
husband should be excluded from the interest in the pro-
perty given to the wife. A limitation to the " absolute
use" of the wife did not intimate this, and the separate
use clause thus arose. The establishment of this right
to a separate enjoyment of the property still lel% it sub-
ject to the ordinary incidents of property, and amongst
the rest, to the wile's power of alienation. The question
diwassed in Lord Thurlow's time, whether a married
women could be deprived of, or protected against, the
right of alienation, resulted in the adoption of the
well-known clause restricting her power of an-
ticipation. It had been truly said by Mr
Bethell that no particular form of words was
necessary to have this effect, and that Lord Cottenham
could not have held that any such particular form was
required. The substance of the limitation was alone re-
garded by the courts of law, except, perhaps, in some
few forms of conveyance having a feudal origin. The
particular words " without power of anticipation" were
not nett-scary, but it must be clear, that this was pro-
bably what Lord Cottenham had held, that the wards
used, whatever they were, must have the meaning attri-
buted to them. The question was, did the words in this
case impose that restriction? He thought not. The
personal appearance of the lady was implied in the direc-
tion to pay into her proper hands, but that direction had
over and over again been held not' to restrain the power
of alienation. The payment must be made to the peti-
tioner. The costs of all parties to to paid out of the
fund.