HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.— 2 BLAND. 551

plants its equity in directing the whole of the wife's fortune to be
settled upon her exclusively.

Here there is no direct proof of a fraudulent and corrupt inten-
tion on the part of Lewis Helms to marry this plaintiff Anna
merely as a means of getting her fortune into his hands; but there
are circumstances in the case which go far to shew that his motives
were, by no means, as correct as they ought to have been. Her
age; the pecuniary situation of the parties; the plan he formed
so soon after marriage, although an ignorantly contrived one, to
have the legacy transferred to him by a power of attorney, and a
will executed by his wife; her refusal; the open rupture that soon
followed, and the disclosure, from his papers, of his bad character,
are facts which, when taken together, it will be difficult to reconcile
with any other than sordid motives on his part.

I have met with no instance where the wife was not a ward of
the Court, in which the whole of her fortune has been settled on
her, merely on the ground of the fraudulent or base motives of the
* husband, and her having been deluded into a marriage for

the sole purpose of enabling him to get hold of her prop- 579
erty. But if, as has been said, this Court has the power to go so
far as even to declare the contract of marriage itself to be null
and void, on the ground of its having been procured by terror, ab-
duction, and fraud; Ferlat v. Grojon, 1 Hopk. Rep, 478; it would not
be consistent with itself, and faithful to its best principles, if it
were not to allow itself, under such circumstances as are here pre-
sented, to deal out to the wife a liberal and saving measure of jus-
tice; and, as the only means of preventing the deceiver from
profiting by his delusion, to have the whole of her fortune settled
upon her exclusively.

Let it, however, be supposed that Lewis Helms, in contracting
marriage with his present wife, was actuated by no improper or
unworthy motives; or that, even if he was, they cannot be allowed
to form any sufficient reason lor stripping h'im of the whole of this
legacy, and that it is impossible the Court should undertake, of
itself, to give the whole to her; because it cannot assume or admit
the position, that a married woman is entitled to the whole of her
separate property to her separate use, in direct opposition to the
clearest principles of the marriage contract. Yet the husband, at
least, is in a condition to bind himself by his own voluntary con-
sent; and. therefore, although the Court itself cannot divest him

wholly of his martial rights, yet he himself may freely release
them; and if he does so, such relinquishment may be received
ratified, and cast into the shape of a settlement, by the Court, for
the benefit of the wile and her children.

Where it appeared that the wife was entitled to a large legacy;
that she had been clandestinely married; that the husband, after
the marriage, had made a settlement equal to the whole amount