case BRASBRIDGE and other versus Woodroffe at the roll November where a  residue be undisposed and a testatrix have always declare the next of kin  shall have nothing executor though they be legatee shall have the residue  notwithstanding though the executor in this case have legacy one of pound the  other of pound yet if it appear in proof by parole evidence that both before  and after the execution of the will the testatrix always declare that the next  of kin who be plaintiff in this cause shall have nothing and that she will not  leave they any thing by her will the executor shall notwithstanding have the  residue where it be undisposed of it be object by the plaintiff counsel that  evidence of the testatrixs intention of exclude the next of kin be not  sufficient to give the residue to the executor the evidence ought to be  positive that she have it in contemplation to give it to the executor at the  time of make of the will master of the roll I be full satisfy if I shall in  this case give the residue to the next of kin I shall give it contrary to the  intention of the testator the court will certain favour the next of kin where  they can do it consistent with the rule of equity and justice but this do not  tie I down from inquire into the intention of the testatrix for wherever there  be evidence Gainsborough v Gainsborough vern Littlebury v Buckley vern  bachelor v Searle vern Rutland v Rutland p W Rachfleld v careless ibidem note  Ulrich v Litchfield post lake v lake will walker v walker post that will  satisfy the mind of the court as to the intention they will depart from their  general rule though they will not do it upon slight proof the give pound to  one executor and only pound to the other be a presumption upon the face of the  will that it be not intend to exclude they from the residue but only to show a  preference to one of they so Buffar v Bradford post Blinkhorn v Feast Ves  Bowker v hunter bro Charles Rep Frewin v Relfe bro Charles Rep Oliver v Frewin  bro Charles Rep vide bachelor versus Searl vern one by will give his executor  a express legacy and make no disposition of the surplus the court will admit  of parole evidence to show the intention of t testator and if prove that the  testator intend the surplus to the executor he shall have it notwithstanding  his express legacy bachelor ux versus Searl vern Eq ab pl S c though the will  be draw by doctor hale a clergyman who be not suppose to be conusant of the  law yet that will make no alteration in favour of the executor but it must  depend on the proof in answer to the objection of the plaintiff counsel it be  enough if the court be satisfy as to that single fact that the next of kin be  not to have it for there be no medium between the next of kin and executor for  if it appear that the intention be to exclude the next of kin the executor  must have it of course the bill dismiss but without cost because when the next  of kin be disappoint of the residue it be some excuse say the court for their  litigate the executor right to it