Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1081

for her children out of their father's estate, nor had the appellant Dame Ann, by her marriage articles, any thing out of Sir William's estate, either real or personal, but was wholly excluded from any benefit thereof, save only by his will. That it was not, nor could be controverted, that if the devise of the £3000 to the appellants John and Charles had not been struck out of the will, (though the bond was altered, and taken in the name of Sir James Bateman, in trust for them,) they would have been entitled to this £3000 over and above their shares of the residue of the personal estate; and it was fully proved, that the striking out this devise was done at first without the direction or so much as the knowledge of Sir William, and no way intended to the children's prejudice; and though he was afterwards informed of it, when he republished his will, yet he did it wholly upon the judgment and declaration of Mr. Nicol, who had himself sworn, that if he had understood the striking out the devise, would have in any manner prejudiced the appellants John and Charles, he would not have done it. That a Court of Equity ought to assist as far as possible in supporting the true intentions of parties; and for that purpose to supply defects, and rectify and relieve against casual mistakes, and other accidents of a similar nature; and that therefore, the court ought not, in the present case, to have relieved the respondents against the plain and manifest intention of the testator, and against their own acts and acquiescence in the deliberate distribution of his personal estate, agreeable to that intention. Should it be objected, that in the probate of the will under the seal of the Prerogative Court, no mention is made of the devise of the £3000 to the appellants John and Charles; it might be answered that in the original will remaining in that court, this devise was still plainly to be read; and if through the ignorance or inadvertency of the executrix in matters of that nature, the will was proved, without any notice being taken of the devise of the £3000, yet the interest of the appellants John and Charles ought not to be thereby in any manner prejudiced or affected; in regard they were no parties, nor in any wise privy or consenting thereto, but were then and still infants.

[462] On the other side it was contended (E. Northey, G. Pauncefort), that Sir William's actually giving the £3000 in his life-time to the appellants John and Charles, and causing the bond to be changed in trust for them, made that money so much their own, that Sir William himself could never afterwards have claimed it; and, that this was such an advancement, as obliged them, by the custom of London, either to take it as a full advancement, or bring it into hotchpot. That Sir William, by particular legacies, and by making the appellants John and Charles two of his residuary legatees, had given them about £4000 out of his testamentary estate; so that as the decree now stood, these appellants, (besides the interest of the £3000 from the time of the gift, which amounted to about $1100, and which the decree did not oblige them to bring into hotchpot,) would have about £7000 between them, which was £500 a-piece more than the respondents would have; besides, the appellant Dame Ann had about £3000 in jewels, plate, etc. given her by the will, so that she and her children would have upwards of £10,000 out of Sir William's estate: and therefore, if there was any room for equity to interpose against the custom of London, it ought to do so in favour of the first wife's children, who had the least shares; but as the custom (which is the law of the city) was, in this case, plainly with the first wife's children, it was hoped there could be no reason for equity to be against them. That the £3000 being at first in the will, and then given by Sir William in his life-time, and afterwards struck out of the will, which was then read to him and re-published, in the presence of the appellant Dame Ann, and her own brother; when the respondents were beyond sea, and no friend of theirs suffered to be present, (even their father's own brother being turned out of the room, by the appellant Dame Ann, while this was doing,) put it beyond a doubt, that it was not only the intention of Sir William, but of the friends and relations of the appellants John and Charles, that the £3000 should be a gift in Sir William's life-time; and that his will, as to that, should stand revoked and if a will, actually revoked, should under pretence of mistake of the law, by counsel or relations, and after so many acts expressive of the testator's intent to revoke it, be set up again, no person could be sure of revoking his will.

But, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the