case Farnham versus Philip October see Pym v Lockyer my Cr doubt Montefiore v  Guedalla de g f g Jur n S see Meinertzagen v Walters lr Ch Leighton v Leighton  lr Eq SC post cite where after make a will a father advance a child with a  portion as great or great than the legacy such provision have always be hold a  ademption but when the devise have be of a residue no instance where a  subsequent portion have be hold to be a ademption a b a freeman of London have  a wife and six child by his will give his wife her widow chamber and the three  of his estate which she be entitle to by the custom of London and to his six  child one other three which they be entitle to by virtue of the custom of  London and as to the three he have a power to dispose of he direct a debt of  one hundred pound to be pay out of it a d the residue to be equal divide among  his wife and child after make his will he marry one of his daughter to the  plaintiff and give her one thousand pound which in the marriagearticle be call  her portion or provision and a b be now dead this bill be bring by the husband  and wife for their seven part of their testamentary three for the defendant  the other child it be insist that the portion be a satisfaction for the whole  and that as they do not offer to bring the thousand pound into hotchpot to  make all the child equal they ought not to claim this thousand pound which be  more than their share of the testamentary three the whole estate be but ten  thousand five hundred pound and the share of the testamentary part too by  which they will have two hundred and ninety pound more than the other child  that the will intend a equality among all the child and as they refuse to  bring in this thousand pound they claim under the will as far it make for they  and against the will when it make against they which equity will not permit  parole evidence be offer to prove that the father after give the thousand  pound portion have often declare that all his child shall have a equal share  of this estate atkins Lord chancellor that evidence can be read be to explain  a will by matter extrinsic to it which will introduce great uncertainty in the  construction of will and therefore such evidence have often be refuse to be  read vide Rosewell v Bennett post vol Jeacock v Falkner bro Charles Rep as to  the case itself I can make the child portion equal by any rule of equity where  a father after make his will advance his child with a portion as great or  great than the legacy give by the will such provision have always be hold a  ademption irod v Hufirst Freem hale v Acton Charles Rep Hoskins v Hoskins pre  Charles hartop v Whitmore Prec Charles p W SC Jenkins v Powell vern Scotton v  Scotton I stram Biggleston v grub ante tapper v Chalcroft post on the general  doctrine of satisfaction see Bellasis v Uthwatt ante vol note but there be no  case where the devise have be of a residue that be uncertain and at the time  of the testator death may be more or less in which a subsequent portion atkins  er p give have be hold to be a ademption here this be not a devise of one  three but of a residue after payment of a debt charge on that three and here  be likewise something to which this portion may be proper apply as a  satisfaction videlicet the orphanage part and be call this a portion or  provision in the marriage article which seem as if he then consider this as a  advancement in his lifetime in bar of the custom there be no declaration in  the will that he intend all equal but what he have say of equality be of the  residue which be a part of the estate remain after what be give away in the  testator lifetime Lord Hardwicke direct a account to be take of the personal  estate of the testator Michael Philips and also of what be due to mary Philips  the testator widow for her paraphernalia and widowchamber which be to be pay  and retain by her after the testator debt be pay and his clear personal estate  to be divide into three equal part and one three part thereof to be pay to the  testator widow and one other three part to be divide between and pay to  Michael Thomas any mary and Sarah Philips the testator five child the  plaintiff Ann Farnham admit herself full advance of her orphanage share in her  father lifetime and as to the remain three after the deduction out of it  accord to the direction of the testator will his lordship order the residue  thereof to be divide into seven part and one seven thereof to be pay to the  plaintiff Farnham and his wife and the other six part to be equal divide  between the defendant the testator widow and the five other defendant her  child