When Trustees are directed by Will to apply so much Interest as may be necessary for maintaining, &c. the Court will, if the Infants have other Property, confine the Maintenance to what is actually necessary (1).

A Testator directed Maintenance for his Sons during Minority, and for his Daughter till twenty-one or Marriage; and gave her a Legacy in case she should attain twenty-one, payable, and to carry Interest from that time; yet, having married at eighteen, she was allowed Maintenance for the interval until twenty-one (m).

The Interest of small Legacies (300 l.) has been ordered to be paid to the Mother for Maintenance, upon her affidavit that the Father was abroad in very embarrassed circumstances (n).

The Court, it seems, always refers it generally to the Master, to consider of a proper allowance, and does not make a special reference (o); and a large allowance for Maintenance and Education will, under circumstances, be granted (p); as where a Guardian or Father are in distressed circumstances (q); and where a Mother (r) or younger Children are left destitute, a large allowance will be made to the eldest Son to enable him to maintain them (s).

(1) Rawlins v. Goldfrap, 5 Ves. 440.

(m) Chambers v. Goldwin, 11 Ves. 1. See on this subject Butler v. Butler, 2 Atk. 60. Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 3 Atk. 123. (n) Walker v. Shore, 15 Ves.

122.

(o) Burnett v. Burnett, 1 Bro. C. C. 179

(p) Ex parte Lord Petre, 7 Ves. 403.

(q) Roach v. Garvan, 1 Ves. 160.

(r) Heysham v. Heysham, 1 Cox, 179.

(s) Harvey v. Harvey, 2 P. Wms. 24. Lanoy v. Duke and Duchess of Athol, 2 Atk. 447Petre. Petre, 3 Atk. 511.

It is a general rule that a Trustee cannot, for the purpose of Maintenance, break in upon the Capital, though the Capital may be so small as not to leave a comfortable Maintenance and Education; and it is very rarely that the Court itself has broke in upon the Capital, for the mere purpose of Maintenance (†).

3dly. The Marriages of Infant Wards of the Court of Chancery may next be considered.

Where Infant Wards of the Court are upon a Treaty of Marriage, the consent of the Court ought to be obtained. When the Court is applied to, it generally makes a reference to the Master, to see whether the Settlement proposed is proper; if it is found to be improper, the Court will not give the Infant leave to marry (u).

In like manner, in the City, an Orphan Infant cannot marry without the License of the Court of Aldermen on pain of commitment. The Husband is usually required to take out his Freedom of the City, and the Court refers it to the Common Serjeant to approve of a proper Settlement (a). And though it appears the Party had no notice of his Wife being a City Orphan, yet still he is punishable, for he is bound to inquire (y).

The Marriage of a Ward, without the consent of the Guardian, is a ravishment of the Ward, and severely punishable by the Stat. of Westm. second, c. 35 (*). Nor is there any thing a Court of Equity

(1) Walker v. Wetherall, 6 Ves. 474; and see Anon. Mos. 41.

(u) Smith v. Smith, 3 Atk. 305.

(x) See Frederick v. Fre

(y) Vid. note D. to Herbert's Case, 3 P. Wms. 118.

(z) 2 Inst. 440. 2 P. Wms. 110. Fitz, Nat. Brev. 329. 2o Edit.

entertains greater jealousy of, nor shows more resentment against, than the unlawful Marriage of Infants(a). The Courts seem to have been fully impressed with the great truth, that no act in Life is of more importance to an Individual than Marriage; none, on which the happiness of its future Life so much depends.

Where an Infant is committed by the Court to the custody or care of any one, such Committee gives a Recognizance that the Infant shall not marry without leave of the Court, which form is very rarely altered, and only under special circumstances: so that if the Infant marries, though without the privity, or knowledge, or neglect of the Committee, yet the Recognizance is, in strictness, forfeited, whatever favour the Court, upon application, may think fit to show such Committee, when he appears not to have been in fault (b). In Dr. Davis's Case (c) the Recognizance was on application moderated, viz. "That the Infant shall not marry, with the Committee's Privity, without the Consent of the Court."

If an Infant Ward of Court be suspected of being about to make an improper Marriage, and there be an affidavit of such intended Marriage, the Chancellor will grant an Injunction generally to restrain all communication with the Infant, by Letter or otherwise (d). Hearsay Evidence of declarations will be attended to on such occasions (e).

Where an Infant Ward of the Court is suspected

(a) 2 P. Wms. 111.

(b) See Eyre v. Countess of Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 102. (c) 1 P. Wms. 698.

(d) Pearce and Crutchfield, 14 Ves. 206; and see Lord

Raymond's Case, For. 58. S. C.
MS. Beard and Travers, 1
Ves. 313.

(e) Beard v.

313.

Travers, 1 Ves.

of forming an improper Marriage, and the Mother, her Guardian, countenances it, the Court will appoint a Guardian in her room, and restrain her from giving her consent to the Marriage without leave of the Court, and that the Infant should not be married without leave of the Court, and the Infant will be restricted from receiving any Letters or Messages from her admirer (ƒ).

All Persons, it seems, concerned in the contrivance of the Marriage of a Ward of Court, knowing it to be such, are punishable for the contempt (g).

If Peeresses are instrumental in the Marriage of a Ward of Court, without the leave of the Court, a sequestration will be issued against them for their contempt (h).

A Barrister, a principal contriver of the Marriage of a Ward who had a large fortune, was, for his offence, committed to the Fleet, prohibited from practising at the Bar, and struck out of the Commission as a Justice of the Peace (i).

If a Lady, a Ward of the Court, marries after she is of age, without the consent of the Court, there is no contempt in the Husband, nor can the Court oblige him to execute a Settlement, if the Husband does not seek its assistance to obtain her Property; but if the Lady be under age, it will be considered as a contempt, and the Court is enabled, by Imprisonment, to compel the Husband to make a proper

(f) See Lord Shipbrook v. Lord Hinchinbrook, 2 Dick. 547, 8, and the case there mentioned; and see Roach and Garvan, 1 Dick. 88.

(g) Moore v. Moore, 2 Atk.

(h) Eyre and Countess of Shaftsbury, 2 P. Wms. 112.

(i) Mr. Justice Mitchell's Case, 2 Atk. 173. S. C. mentioned Ambl. 394.

Settlement (k). In a very aggravated case, where a Guardian married his Ward, who was of age, to his Son, who had no Property, it was held to be punishable by an Information (1).

Where a Marriage of a Ward of Court, without consent, takes place, on a Petition by the Guardian, all Parties concerned will be ordered to attend, and the Husband will be committed (but not to close confinement, though Lord Hardwicke made some orders to that effect) (m), and restrained from receiving his Wife's visits; and she, it seems, may be compelled to leave her Husband After some time, the Husband may petition to be discharged, on executing a Settlement, approved by the Master.

The personal attendance of a person running off with and marrying a Ward, has deen dispensed with, on offering to go before the Master, and make a Settlement (n); and in some cases he has been discharged on undertaking to make a Settlement (o); but, this Lord Eldon refused to do (p). The common course of the Court is to have a reference to the Master, to see that a proper Settlement shall be made before the contempt can be cleared (9).

Marrying an Infant Ward of the Court is a contempt, though the Parties concerned in such Marriage had no notice that the Infant was a Ward of the Court (r) and a Marriage in Scotland, though on

(k) Ball v. Coutts, 1 Ves. and Beames, p. 300.

(1) Goodhall v. Harris, 2 P. Wms. 560.

(m) See 8 Ves. 79.

(n) Green against Pritzler, Ambl. 602.

(0) Stackhole's case, 3 Ves.

89. Winch and James, 4 Ves. 387.

(p) Bathurst v. Murray, 8 Ves. 79.

(q) Stevens v. Savage, 1 Ves.

jun. 154.

(r) Herbert's Case, 3 P.Wms.

116.