to trustees to pay income to wife on attempted
alienation-Validity or repugnancy-Nature of
estate taken. A testator by his will gave one-
fourth of his residuary realty to trustees on trust
for his son absolutely. By a codicil the testator
cut down the son's interest to a life estate deter-
minable on alienation, in which event the income
during the remainder of the son's life was to be
paid to the persons who would have been entitled
if the son were then dead, with a discretionary
power to the trustees to pay the income to the
son's wife during the remainder of his life. The
gift in remainder after the son's death was void

either for uncertainty or as infringing the rule
against perpetuity. The property was resumed
and the compensation money paid into Court under
the Public Works Act, 1900. Held, that the
power in the trustees to pay the income to the
son's wife on alienation was valid, notwithstanding
that by reason of the rule in Lassence v. Tierney
(1 Mac. & G. 551) and Hancock v. Watson ([1902]
A.C. 14) the son was, subject to this restriction
against alienation, entitled to the property in fee
simple; and that, therefore, the son was not
entitled absolutely to the compensation money.
SMIDMORE v. SMIDMORE, 5 S. R. 492; 22 W.N. 141.