atkins case CASTLEDON versus turner July W bequeathe his land to his wife for  life and after her decease to m d niece to his wife and say item I give the  use of pound stock for her natural life but after her decease I give the pound  among my wife brother and sister the wife and not the niece be entitle to the  pound stock for life William Wetherby by his will say I bequeathe my land to  my wife Alicia during her life and after her decease I give the land to  Margaret Dinton niece to my say wife item I give the use of five hundred pound  stock for and during her natural life but after her decease I give the five  hundred pound among the brother and sister of my say wife Mr solicitor general  for the plaintiff the niece who claim the five hundred pound say that parole  evidence can be admit here to explain the testator intention accord to Lord  cheney case in   the word in this will be equal applicable to one person as  another and not sufficient certain that it belong to the wife or niece it have  be determine where there be introductory clause with the word item they be  consider as absolute clause niece to the wife be only descriptive of the  person and therefore in grammatical construction the wife be not the last  antecedent and as it can be conjectural only that he mean the wife the court  can determine will upon conjecture only but must be void for the uncertainty  in cheney case a devise to the son of a person and he have two son hold to be  void for the uncertainty Mr attorney general counsel for the wife argue that  from the beginning to the end of the will there be not one word but what be  applicable to niece or wife her be a relative word and must refer to some  person who be mention before it have be say it can mean the wife because she  be not the last antecedent and I be sure as to the niece it may be as well to  a stranger but I apprehend her throughout be applicable to the wife he cite  the case of Tomkins versus Tomkins SC cite Ves vide etian sleech v Thorington  Ves Stebbing v walkey bro Charles Rep late before Lord Hardwicke there be a  devise of pound apiece to three child of a and be have four and his lordship  decree pound to each of the four child of a notwithstanding atkins Mr welldone  of the same side cite Hodgson versus Hodgson vern Lord chancellor if there be  a absolute want or omission of a devisee in a will there no parole proof can  be admit Mr solicitor general be reply Mr attorney say that the court must  determine whether it be one or the other by a probable conjecture I differ  with he as to the rule of evidence and upon standard rule lie down in Cheyneys  case he shall have it who the testator intend shall have it and not be certain  who he intend it be hold to be void atkins er p there have be no authority  cite to impeach this rule the case of Tomkins versus Tomkins be not parallel  for it do not fix which of the three child shall take but that the word three  be surplusage and the court determine the testator mistake the number and that  the bequest be fifty pound apiece to the child that item be introductory of a  new clause and divide so far from connect it with the precedent suppose it  have be for natural life only who can it be construe to mean then the addition  of her only show he mean a woman instead of a man Lord chancellor I be of  opinion this be such a omission as be not proper to be supply by parole  evidence for notwithstanding where a person have two son of the name of John  it may be supply yet not where there be a absolute omission vide Baylis v  attorney general atk Ulrick v Litchfield ibidem then it must be determine by  the construction of the will and there be no rule of law that prevent it from  be show by the construction of the will itself first consider it upon the  clause item I give the use of pound stock for and during her natural life c  atkins it have be right admit on the part of the plaintiff that the word for  her natural life do import he mean some woman or other then consider the word  her it must be a word of reference and but two person be name in the will if  right in my first reason it must mean either wife or niece to be sure her do  not name the person then shall it refer to the wife or niece though the  testator have say no more than her I be clear of opinion for the wife for the  wife be the last mention and the last antecedent the intention of the testator  be plain he have no relation of his own for who he have any regard and  therefore consider her relation as his own will it be natural to make he  prefer the wife niece before the wife herself it be true the word to her use  be leave out in the beginning of the first clause but I be not satisfy the  word item must be construe as independent of the precede clause put it into  Latin do of or belonging to a wife I the land and house and then afterward do  law the five hundred pound stock the latter word will have be clear in that  language carry back to the former word my wife the manner of the disposition  under this will must be take notice of who be the testator principal take care  of for her life why the wife he must natural mean her for who he have before  be secure the land for life the word her in every part of the will beside mean  the wife consider her as the woman he be take the most care of and have her in  his view therefore I be of opinion the wife be entitle and decree accord Reg  lib a fol