10

necessary to support the beneficiaries. The products of {the whole}
every part are charged with the whole burden, the amt of wh can
only be known from time, whilst the trust is in the process of execution.
But if, in behalf of one beneficiary, his share may be withdrawn, it
must be held that in behalf of another the same thing may be done,
and thus a share designed to rest upon the whole property may
be devolved upon a part of it. By keeping the whole together, the
Whole family may be supported, when it divided the share of each
would be inadequate to his or her {support} maintenance. If the testator had
intended to give equal benefits to his daughter, & to each child that
L might have, nothing was easier than to say so; yet he has not
only not said so, but in the contrary has confined benefits which
in any event must be unequal [& varying] from time to time; and
which in certain contingencies may become greatly unequal.
Nickell etal v Handley etal 10 Grab. 341.

Upon the [?] stated however, I presume that the
Court would first of all direct a maintenance for L (as the first ob-
ject of the Testator's [bounty?] to be proved for according to the terms
of the {a similar provision} if sufficient income was
left, or as far as the [?] wd go, that a simialr provision of food
clothing & all the comforts of life, suitable to his condition and circumstance
to be made for the boy, by the trustees. It would not be proper to
turn on the property or part of it, to H {lest that} nor even to pay
him the portion of the income for the purpose above, but the
trustees should themselves provide the articles. Nor can anything
be allowed, without [L's] consent, for education , or for anything
but food, clothing, & corresponding comforts if life etc.

In respect to the supplemental questions above re-
ferred to:-
-
(1) whether the case is altered {by} or H's rights materially or [afr]