ambler case dowset against sweet legacy to John and Benedict son of I S I S  have two son James and b but no son of the dame of John hold James shall take  legacy to the son and daughter of W W he have four son hold none of the son  can take but the daughter take the whole v sleech v Thorington Ves lib Reg a  foe a in chancery d July before Lord Hardwicke Gideon Heydon by will of that  February recite he be entitle to pound due on mortgage give pound of it to  John and Benedict son of John sweet also pound of it to the son and daughter  of William wicker and the residue of the mortgage money to Elizabeth Patie and  give the residue of his general personal estate to Heydon and another John  sweet have two son only James and Benedict William wicker have four son and  one daughter on bill by executor for direction as to payment of the legacy  saint question whether James sweet shall take under the description of John  and hold clear that he shall if it stand on the will and the other fact only  but it be prove the testator use to call he Jacky it appear from l r that John  sweet have have a son name John Bernard sweet but who be dead before the date  of the will d question whether the legacy to the son and daughter of William  wicker shall go to the old son and daughter or to all the son and daughter and  hold clear none of the son can take for uncertainty in the description but the  whole shall go to the daughter it be a joint devise and in such case by  whatever cause it happen one of the jointtenants can take the other shall have  the whole see Humphrey v tayleur Amb   Litt d question whether the cost of the  suit shall be pay out of the residue of the mortgage money or out of the  general residue of the personal and hold clear the general residue shall pay  they for the bequest of the residue of the mortgage money be as much a  specific bequest as any other decree c in the follow case parole evidence be  admit where the legatee be wrong or imperfect name in the will parson v parson  Ves jun master v master p W Beaumont v fall p W abbot v massy Ves smith v cony  Ves Garth v Meyrick bro c c river case atk S west Bradwin v Harper post anon  Eq can Abr Campbell v French Ves price v page Ves Stockdale v Bushby Ves S c  coop see in edge v Salisbury ante Baugh v read Ves jun Ulrice v Litchfield atk  careless v careless mere Evans v trip mad Harris v bishop of Lincoln p wms but  see contra Andrews v dobson Cox where the Christian name be omit see price v  page Ves but where there be a entire omission of the name evidence will not be  admit win v price Ch can baily v attorneygeneral atk hunt v Hort bro Castledon  v turner atk see ante in Delmare v Robello Ves jun Lord Thurlow say it be  almost impossible to say that if there be a bequest to the son and daughter of  one who at the time of the bequest have four son and a daughter there be not a  dissonance between the state of the fact and of the bequest or to let in  satisfactory evidence that one son be mean for it be clear he mean one it be  within all the rule of ambiguity therefore I fancy the court in that case of  dowset v sweet go upon the ground that the evidence be not sufficient to show  the intention and then it become uncertain see Hampshire v pierce Ves ambler  er p