case pet case salk intestate die leave a decease brother child and a decease  brother grandchild the grandchild not admit to any distributory share the  clause in the statute which say that there shall be no representative among  collateral beyond brother and sister child be to be intend that none shall  take by representation but the child of brother and sister to the intestate a  motion be make by Mr Lechmere for a mandamus to the judge of the spiritual  court to make distribution on the statute of pound car cap and the case be  order to be put in the paper to be argue appear to be thus peer William sir  Peter pelt in April die intestate have neither wife nor child his next of kin  be Elizabeth daughter of sir Phineas pelt who be brother to the say Peter pelt  and administration be commit to this Elizabeth pelt the person claim  distribution be Margaret and Peter pelt child of Peter pelt who be son of sir  Phineas and brother of Elizabeth the administratrix and the question be  whether the intestate brother son child be the grand nephew and grand niece of  the intestate shall come in for a distributive share with the intestate niece  the statute say that the personal estate in case there shall be no wife or  child shall go to the next of kin of the intestate and their legal  representative after which come a proviso enact that there shall be no  representation among collateral after brother and sister child in support of  the motion Mr Lechmere contend that the design of this act be to be diffusive  and to apportion as much as possible the intestate personal estate so that all  the near relation may be provide for and that for this reason it be proper  call a statute of distribution which title can no way be answer be any one  single hand allow to sweep away the whole beside that this have be hitherto  the practice in the spiritual court against which on behalf of the  administratrix it be urge by Mr Harcourt that the grand nephew and grand niece  if entitle to any distributive share must claim it either as next of kin in  equal degree or else as representative peer William and first as next of kin  there be no colour for it for they can not be in equal degree of kin because  the administratrix be the brother daughter and Margaret and Peter the brother  grand child that be one degree further dly as representative they can not be  entitle for as much as they be not child of the brother of the intestate that  it be reasonable to construe this statute as favourable as may be for the  administrator since a great burden lie upon they at law in duly administer the  intestate estate and this statute of car take away from their profit but do  not at the same time as it ought to have do lessen their burden he cite raym  carter versus Crawley c I north opinion and say that it have be so settle in  chancery in the case of clement and Harris vern pre Charles maw versus Harding  July and Newcomb versus Tucker Feb that it be true among lineal representative  ad infinitum shall share in the distribution otherwise among collateral holt c  I sir Walter walker a famous civilian draw this act for distribution peer  William er p and the only question now before we upon it be whether the word  brother and sister child in the proviso shall not be intend brother and sister  child of the intestate now sure they ought to be so take for the intestate be  the subject matter of this act it be his estate his wife his next of kin his  child and consequent his brother child that the peer William statute speak of  so that the relative term make use of throughout have the intestate for their  correlative the intent of the proviso be to confine the degree of  representation that they shall not go beyond brother and sister child and if  this construction have not hitherto prevail in the spiritual court the party  be at liberty to appeal et per gold I it have be always say the statute shall  not be take in favour of distribution wherefore the mandamus be deny the whole  court declare that among collateral save only in the case of brother and  sister child proximity of blood shall give title to the personal estate of the  intestate and except in some instance mention therein this statute be to be  govern and construe by the rule of the civil law per the master of the roll  sir Joseph Jekyll in the case of Mentney versus petty pre Charles see vern  Beeton versus darking e content but more particular the case of bower versus  Littlewood post where lord chancellor Macclesfield declare the law to be  settle by the resolution above mention peer William de boundary S michaelis