Page 93 - index

by a majority of three Judges to two, gave judgment to
the Respondents, against which the present appeal has
been brought.
By the deed in question, the Appellant, Marie, gave
to each of her two aunts, Mrs. Delisle (the Respondent)
and Miss Luce Cuvilier, an annuity of f 150 (currency),
representing for each a capitnl of &15(JO. 'The gift to her
aunt Luce was for her onrn use; that to Mrs. Delisle was
in trust for her five daughters," pour partic de leurs frais
de toilette et autre petits besoins personncls". The c:ipi-
ta1 (£2500) was settled iipon the daiighteis aftcr their
niother's death.
The following are the ninterial facts: Thc Appellant
Marie, who was the only child of Mr Symes by his wife, a
sister of the Respondent RIrs. Delisle, was born in 1845;
Her mother died in 1Rti1: and her father some time before
1866; the exact datc does not appear. Upon the dcath of
ber father she became possessed of a largc fort,une, viz.:
about onemilliondollars. The greater part of this largepro-
perty she inherited from her father, but a part (the sum
spoken of is £ 50,KKi) from her mother. From the time
of her inotherls death in 1851, until she went to England in
1869, she lived with her aunt Luce Cuvilier, and during that
time constrtntly associated with her couains Delisle.
The gift now in question was rnade soon after the Appel-
lant carne of age. She nt the same time executed other
deeds containing dcnations of a income of & GO0 a year to
each of hcr uncles, Austin antl Maurice Cuvilicr, represen-
ting a capital suin of £ 10,000 to each. In al1 these
transactions the Appellant consiilted Sir Georges Cartier,
who was her ordinary legnl adviser.
It is suggested that one motive for thcse gifts was the
wish expressed by the Appellant's mother, thnt if her bug-
bmd did not rnarry again, and the Appellant succeedcd to
the whole of hie large fortune, her (the riiothci's) property
should go to her own relatives. It appcars from the
Appcllant's evidcnce that, though she had not herself