The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-21 00:00:00

This was a petition that the Accountant-General might be
directed to pay to the petitioner, Sarah Burridge, upon trusts
of indenture, dated the 22d of November, 1823, all dividends
which had accrued due, or hereafter might accrue due, upon
the sum of 5,992/. Three per Cent. Annuities, standing in her
name. Mr. Simpkinson appeared for the petitioner.
'rhe facts of the case have already appeared in The Sun.
The Learned Counsel said that by the original settlement it
appeared that the money was settled, after the death of Mr.
Row, the first husband, upon Mrs. Row, for her life, for her
separate use, independently of that first husband ; but there
was no provision fur separate use in case she should marry
again. She had since intermarried with Mr. Burridge. No
settlement was executed between them, in consideration of the
marriage, but it appeared that antecedent to the marriage, by
a deed' of the 22d of November, 1825, Mrs. Burridge as•
signed over her life-interest to pay the dividends which might
accrue to her during her life, to her separate use,and there was a
clause in the deed restraining anticipation. By the decree
made at the hearing in Elilary 'term, it was declared that Sarah
Burridge was entitled to the dividends arising from this money
for her life.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Did she execute that deed
merely with reference to the possibility of marriage in general?
Mr. SIMPEINSON—The deed states that the sum might
thenceforth belong to the petitioner for her separate use, frea
from control of her said husband."

The VICE-CHANCELLOK—What is the meaning of "her
said husband ?"

Mr. SIMPKINsow—Mr. Row was then alive.

Tho VICE-CHANCELLOR—How could she effect anything
under the first settlement during the joint life of her first hus-
band and herself ?

Mr. SisirKiNsoN—l think she could not effect anything.
It was to be paid to her for her life, and during the life of her
first husband it was to be for her separate use; but there seems
to be no declaration which would enable her to assiga it.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Th6n the second deed would not
appear to be worth much.
Mr. SIMPKINson— The second husband concurs.

The Vic E-UHANCELLOR—If he consents that she shall re-
ceive it to her separale use, I can have no objection; other-
wise the suit would have been improperly framed.
Mr. COOPER said he had appeared for the parties who were
adverse to the plaintiff at the hearing of the cause, and he had
no objection to offer to the prayer of the petition.
The Vic E.CHA CELLOR—Is it desirable to have an affidavit
verifying the second deed?
The SOLICITOR for the plaintiff said that when the sum had
been carried over, a proper settlement would be made by the

Mr. SIMPKINSON—The better way would be to have the
sum transferred. _

The VI'E:EHANCELLOft—This second deed appears to me
a most unintelligible document. Asl understand the ease, by
the original settlem nt there was a life interest given to Mrs.
Row, for her separate use giuring the life of her first husband
and herself, and after hiq decease to her not for her separate
use. Probably I had better read the petition. If you will
give me copies of that and of the two instruments, I will read
them, and give my decision with as little delay as possible.