case Brackenbury against Brackenbury that Nov one charge his estate with pound  for portion for all his young child enumerate they have four child more after  make the will he charge his estate by codicil with a further sum for such  newborn child the estate not produce above pound all the young child be decree  to take equal lib Reg a foe S c Eden car Brackenbury have five young child  make his will in and give certain estate to trustee for year in trust to raise  pound to be pay to his young son George and Edward Brackenbury and to his  daughter Anna Susanna Brackenbury Elizabeth Brackenbury and grace Brackenbury  videlicet to his son at and to his daughter at or marriage for their portion  he give all his other estate to his old son in fee and make he residuary  legatee he afterward have four more young child the plaintiff and by a codicil  in September recite that he have charge the beforementioned estate with the  payment of pound for his young child George Edward Anna Susanna Elizabeth and  grace and take notice that his family be increase since the make of his will  he charge his say estate with a further sum videlicet with the great advance  price that can be make thereof for the portion ambler of the plaintiff name  they to be pay at such time and in such manner and subject to such condition  and limitation as by his will he have direct for payment of the portion of his  then young child the estate be about ayear and not worth more than pound bill  by plaintiff to establish the will and codicil and to have the estate sell for  the equal bene fall the young child it be argue by air York and Mr Hoskins for  the plaintiff that the will and codicil be to be take together and a  construction make upon both as one instrument ambler er p that the testator  intention be to provide for the plaintiff who be bear after the will as well  as for the other young child who be bear before that he be mistake in the  value of this estate he apprehend it be worth more than if he have be ask  whether he mean that the one set of young child shall be pay their portion  before the other he will have answer No that all shall partake of the fund  equal that if the young child who be bear before the will be to be first pay  the other young child will not have a shilling that court of equity will not  only construe word of a will accord to the natural intention of the testator  but will transpose word and give effect to the intention even contrary to the  word in uvedale v Halfpenny p wms they transpose the term provide for young  child which stand after the limitation to the issue male and place it before  they in milner v milner Ves S c hill ms July the court give effect to the  intention contrary to the word ambler sir William milner on his marriage make  a settlement provide inter alian in case of a only daughter pound for her  portion and if more daughter then pound there be issue a son and daughter sir  William make his will and give her pound which in his will he compute with  pound settle on her and pound which she be entitle to under the will of her  grandfather make together pound the question be whether the pound ought not to  be construe pound it be clear a mistake of the sum Lord Hardwicke chancellor  after have have the case argue a second time and take time for consideration  hold that it be the plain intention of sir William that his daughter shall  have a portion of pound though he have fail in express his intention through a  mistake if he have begin the devise by declare his intention of give her pound  and then descend to particular there can not have be much difficulty but his  have begin with the particular afford a argument that the mistake be in the  conclusion and not in the premise but his lordship say that the whole of the  will be to be take together and decree pound to be pay contrary to the word of  the will on the other side it be argue by Mr jewel only that the intention  must be collect from the word make use of that they strong import that the  young child bear after the will be to be provide for out of the estate after  the pound be raise a further sum be charge upon the estate for they to be pay  in such manner as the pound be to be pay to the other young child under the  will that they be in the nature of residuary legatee and take what be leave  after payment of the other legacy that there can be no doubt but the testator  will have provide otherwise if he have foresee the event but the court must  judge from what he have do not what he will have do ambler Lord Northington  chancellor this be a question of intention arise out of the will and codicil  in case of this kind it be absolute necessary to take into consideration the  subjectmatter and the relative situation of the party though the will and  codicil be very inaccurate yet take these circumstance into consideration I  have not the least doubt but that he intend at the time of make his will not  to give legacy to his young child with partiality but to discharge his  parental duty by give all of they portion and therefore though he enumerate  his son and daughter by name yet he describe they as all his young child and  it be the same as if he have say I mean to give portion to all my young child  share and share alike note as to the case where the court will look into the  circumstance of the testator to determine his intention see Lord inchiquin v  French ante and note there if he have die without make a codicil it will not  have exceed the latitude of jurisdiction which this court have take to  construe will accord to the spirit of they and none but one superior court can  convince I of my error in such a construction court of equity construe will  liberal and do not shackle themselves with little narrow construction see  Lethuliar v Tracy ante Austen v tailor ante and the case in the note there  ambler er p the codicil enumerate the second set of young child in the same  manner as he do the first set in the will and incorporate they into his will  he likewise mean to augment the quantum after take notice of the portion give  by his will to his then young child and that his family be increase he charge  the estate with a further sum for who for his family all his young child argue  to be a distinct sum for the four child the evidence have prove that the  estate be but pound ayear and not worth pound suppose the estate have be worth  pound then the argument will be as strong on the other side ambler the plain  way to construe it be to say that as he have before give pound for his then  young child he now give a large sum because his young child be more he mean to  let the four young child share with the other both in the original and  additional fund see Danvers v man bro c c S c Cox Phipps v Lord Mulgrave Ves  Slebbing v walkey bro c c Tomkins v Tomkins cite Ves and in note to Stanley v  Stanley Ves by Mr Hovenden Scott v Fennoulhet Cox garvey v Hibbert Ves