Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/571

decree; insisting (T. Lutwyche, N. Fazakerley), that it ought not to be considered as any part of the testator's marriage agreement, that he should be made free of the city of London; and it was apprehended, that if the entries in the books of the court of Aldermen were to be taken as evidence concerning the terms of the marriage, yet there was not any thing therein from whence it could be inferred, that the court of Aldermen would not consent to the marriage, unless the testator had consented to take up his freedom of the city. On the contrary, the licence was granted to Mrs. Marescoe to be married to Mr. Frederick, provided the Common Serjeant approved of the settlement made upon her, and signified such approbation to the court; and what follows in the entry, seems plainly to import, that Mr. Frederick's taking up his freedom of the city of London, was no part of the condition on which the licence was granted, but a thing merely collateral, and might be proposed by the court of Aldermen out of regard to the interest of the city, in order to increase the number of rich freemen, who might be proper to serve in the chargeable offices of the city. That this appeared the more probable, from the words of the order immediately following, viz. "that for the future, when any persons not free, shall address for leave to marry an orphan, they shall be first required and urged (but it does not say obliged) to take their freedoms, before the court gives consent to such marriage." That there was no instance given, wherein this latter order was pursued; but on the contrary, several instances were proved in the cause, where non-freemen applied and had licences to marry orphans, without being required or urged to take their freedoms; particularly, this Leonora's own sister Jane Marescoe, had licence on the 17th of June 1679, to marry John Leukner, Esq. a non-freeman, upon a settlement made to [262] the satisfaction of a committee and the Recorder, or Common Serjeant, and they were married accordingly; and Mr. Leukner was never urged or required to take up his freedom. That if the testator's taking up his freedom had been intended to be part of the marriage agreement, the court would have obliged him to do it immediately; or made that, as well as the settlement, a part of the condition of the licence; and not have given him a year's time to do what might have been done in a day: for if he had died within the year, it could not have been pretended, that he had broken his promise, nor could his widow have had any benefit by it. That the testator was married on the 23d of February, which was eight days after the licence, and in a few days afterwards, the fortune was paid out of the chamber of London; and though it did not appear, that the Common Serjeant made any report about the settlement, yet it must be presumed that he was satisfied with it, and acquainted the Court that it was adequate to Leonora's fortune; because if it had been otherwise, the fortune would not have been paid out of the chamber. That it appeared by the settlement, that Mrs. Frederick's friends took care to have an ample provision made for her, even beyond her fortune at that time. Her money in the chamber of London was about £8300, and she was entitled as one of her father's coheirs, to about £90 per ann. in possession, and to the reversion of about £43 per ann. more after her mother's death. The estate settled by Sir John Frederick for her jointure, was then £330 per ann. and afterwards increased to about £590 per ann. and by the marriage agreement, there was £14,100 including her own £8300 to be laid out in a purchase of lands, for a further settlement on her and her issue male. So that her eldest son, the respondent Sir John Frederick, enjoyed above £1300 per ann. under the marriage settlement and agreement, which was not affected by the testator's will, or the decree now in question. Great stress is however laid upon the additional fortune which came to Mrs. Frederick after her marriage, which is alledged to have been very large; but this was entirely unknown and unexpected at the time of the marriage, and was many years afterwards recovered by the testator in a suit against her mother, and amounted, above the charges, to no more than £3480, and all that he received besides, was £100 per ann. including taxes, out of the real estate which fell to her by the death of her mother and sister, about sixteen years before his death. So that the provision made for her upon the marriage, appeared to be adequate not only to the fortune which she then had, but even to what she afterwards became entitled to by accident.

Further; it was apprehended, that the decree was not warranted by any precedent, and had extended the power of a Court of Equity farther than has been usually done; it being in the matter of a local custom, which it is not usual for a