ambler case lake against lake Nov parole evidence admit to show that testator  intend his wife executrix to take the residue lib Reg b foe S c will serj hill  ms Christopher lake by will December give several legacy and in it all to his  wife pound in case the marriagebond of pound be not bring in to lessen the  legacy or land charge with payment of the same he give unto his wife all his  land at burley which he then enjoy and he give her while she remain a widow  the house I c live in with the land belong and from her marriage to lake in  fee and make her executrix the testator have freehold and leasehold estate in  burley two question saint whether leasehold pass d question whether the wife  be entitle to the surplus of personalty or be a trustee for the next of kin  note the bill be file by the testator next of kin against the widow to be pay  a distributive share of the residue of the testator personal estate undisposed  of king Min book that November and see will a witness depose that testator be  take ill on a tour of which illness he die tell he if he shall die he have  take good care of his wife and have give her pretty near half his money as a  sum certain and say he have give his wife a particular legacy for fear his  estate shall not hold out but hope if she have good luck in collect his effect  after his decease there will be after his debt pay something leave which will  be all her own and then say he have omit something which if he live to return  home he will do for the benefit of his wife Lord chancellor on d question need  not enter into the general ground upon which determination have be in case of  this kind for the testator have full explain himself be unwilling to enter  into the distinction that a wife may take the residue as executrix though she  have a express legacy for if that be allow it will be difficult to know where  to stop it may by the same reason be extend to a son or a near relation ambler  yet Lord Harcourt in the case of ball v smith vern determine on the executrix  be his wife by reason of the nearness of relationship and presumption that he  will not make her a bare executrix and yet that ground have be since deny but  that nearness of relationship strengthen collateral circumstance see Gobsall v  launden Eq can Abr Randal v Bookbey vern ware v Lant pre Ch Farrington v  knightly p W Martin v rebow bro c c Littlebury v Buckley vern be the first  case where parole evidence be admit it be a appeal from a judgement of Lord  king in the mayor of London court and parole evidence be receive in the house  of lord though it Ilad be refuse before wherever there be a result trust  insist on in opposition to the legal operation of a will parole evidence may  be read to rebut that equity even in the case of a real estate note upon the  question of result trust for the heir at law see in Sherrard v Lord Harborough  post and post so it be in Lord and lady gainsborough case vern and in the  duchess of beauforts p W S c vern the present case be the same as those in  brown v Selwyn can t Talb bro p c Edit Toml there be a distinction make  question be if make one a executor be a extinguish ambler er p mean of his  debt there be a devise of all the rest of the testator personal estate  whatsoever and wheresoever and the house of lord refuse to admit parole  evidence bill dismiss see what be say of this case by the master of the bolls  Ves jun LThe case of Jones v lake atk n appear from serj hill ms vol p where a  very full report of that case be give to have rise out of the will of the  testator Christopher lake mention above S c Cox ms W see Eyton v Dawkins in  Chan July Cox ms thou a executor be always permit to give parole evidence in  favour of his title to the residue except where he be plain and unequivocal  declare a trustee per Lord Eldon in Walton v Walton Ves and see petit v smith  p wms foster v Munt vern Hornsby v finch Ves jun S c bro c c bachelor v Searl  vern S c Eq can Abr clennell v Lewthwaite and Thornton v Tracy yes jun  Bachfield v careless p W duke of Rutland v duchess of Rutland ib trim v bayne  Ves William v Jones Ves Langham v Sanford Ves mere glad v yapp mad bishop of  cloyne v young Ves in order to let in such parole evidence it be sufficient  for the executor to insist by his answer that he be entitle as executor  without allege a title by the effect of the parole evidence Lynn v beaver turn  but parole evidence be not admissible in case where it be conclusive apparent  on the face of the will itself that the executor be mean to be a trustee only  Langham v Sanford mere on the other hand however if there be not on the face  of the will a intention apparent that the executor shall not take the residue  parole evidence of such intention be not admissible Langham v Sanford mere see  white v William v b coop Bac Abr wood chosen in the report of this case in  Wilson the Lord chancellor judgement be give as follow if make a wife executor  of itself shall be allow to be a good reason why she shall have the residue  when she have a considerable legacy we shall not know where to stop but where  a wife be executor and there be a great affection prove to be between they as  here it be very reasonable to admit this kind of parole proof and a less  evidence than this will have turn the scale in her favour