JONES v. STOCKETT. 427

the late owner, as a trustworthy agent for conducting it along a
prescribed line; in regard to which the court always expects to
hear from him; and, when he stands blameless, hears him with
favour and confidence. Therefore, when such a trustee asks the
assistance and protection of the court, in the execution of his
trust, it is his duty to give the court all the information in his
power, in order to enable it to give directions most suitable to the
true nature of the case, and such as may be alike beneficial to all
concerned, (n)

Passing from the consideration of these matters in relation to
the legacy given to the plaintiff Ann for life with remainder over,
it will be seen, that there has been admitted into this case, as now
consolidated, a new plaintiff, Larkin Shipley, another legatee under
this same will, claiming a legacy of a similar kind; and which
therefore, must, in so far as the two legacies are substantially
alike, be governed by the same directions that have been given in
relation to the legacy bequeathed to the plaintiff Ann, But in re-
gard to the legacy to the plaintiff Larkin other questions have
arisen, from his infancy and peculiar situation, which call for other
and further directions to the trustees as to the disposition, in some
respects, of the legatee himself as well as of his legacy.

The directions of the testator are clear and explicit, 'that my
said trustees shall have and retain the sole possession and custody
of the said estate so given as aforesaid to my said nephew Larkin
for the purpose of educating him, and are to rent out the real
estate, and put out the money on interest to the best advantage;
and pay away the yearly proceeds after his arrival at age to him;
but to retain a control over the principal till the objects of this be-
quest and devise are fully complied with.' Hence it is manifest,
that to these trustees alone have been confided the means of ac-
complishing the laudable intentions of this testator.

Where a large legacy is given to an infant, and it vests in him
immediately, or ultimately at all events, it has been usual to allow
an adequate maintenance out of the property so given, and to
order it to be paid to the father for that purpose, if he should not
be of sufficient ability to maintain his child in a manner suitable
to the fortune so given, (o) But in this case the bequest is special
and peculiar. The probable or possible misapplication by the
father of the proceeds of the property bequeathed to this infant,

(n) Walker v, Symonds, 3 Swan. 68; Winder v. Diffenderffer, ante 174.—(o)
Buckworth v. Buckworth, 1 Cox, 80.