case Richard versus baker and other June Reg lib b fol the question be whether  the word in a will so long as my wife continue a widow and no long be to be  confine to the testator house at Edmonton or to be extend to the whole that be  devise to her Lord Hardwicke hold that the household good furniture plate  linen and china be put under the same restriction as the house itself but that  the jewel coach chariot and coachhorse be the wife absolute property the  question in this cause arise upon the word of Mr John Richard will date August  and come on upon a appeal from the roll the testator give two thousand pound  to his wife Dorothy Richard to be pay in six month after his decease and then  say I do also give and bequeathe unto my dear and love wife all my household  good furniture plate linen and china in my house at Edmonton wherein I now  dwell or to the say house belong and also the say house garden field and land  thereto belong so long as she continue my widow and no long and I likewise  give her my jewel coach chariot and coachhorses and the testator give the  residue of his personal estate to the child his wife be then enseint with if a  son and appoint he executory of his will this cause be hear before the master  of the roll on the d of December I who decree that the defendant Dorothy  Richard shall leave with the master a schedule of the several thing specifical  bequeathe to her during her widowhood vide bill v kinaston ante atkins it be  insist by the counsel for the testator widow that the condition of her marry  again be to be confine to the first part of the legacy which end with the word  his house at Edmonton and that the word and also the say house garden c  together with my jewel c be a absolute devise to the widow and that she have  the whole property in they and not subject to the condition and as the word so  long as she continue a widow be interline between the first clause they shall  be confine to that only and the other be absolute legacy the counsel for the  defendant insist it be one entire clause and must be take together and then  the condition extend to the whole and rely upon roll Abr title estate pur vie  you auterment S and upon the case of leak versus Bennet Tr atkins Rep the  attorney general in reply insist the testator can not have his son much in his  contemplation because he be not bear till after his death and it be uncertain  what the issue will be whether a son or a daughter and therefore there be no  great weight to be lie on his affection to the son Lord chancellor the  question come before I upon the construction of the will of Mr Richard the two  thousand pound be a absolute legacy to his wife but I be to determine what be  the relation and extent of the word of limitation so long as she continue a  widow and no long whether they be to be confine to the house at Edmonton or to  be extend to the whole I can be of opinion that the word shall be so restrain  as not to extend to the household good c in the first place it be a natural  construction for when the testator give her the household good c it be not a  general devise of they and when he give her too the house in the country it be  extreme natural to put the good c under the same restriction as the house  itself the word direct pursue the natural meaning for they both fall under the  same devise word give and bequeathe and likewise too under the designation of  the donee for they be part of the same sentence Videathe case of coal versus  Rawlinson salk where the word and also be hold to make it one entire sentence  vide vin ab and case there cite this case be much strong for the word of  limitation follow both the devise of the household good c and the devise of  atkins the house and the put limit word in the first or last part of the  sentence make no difference atkins er p as to the observation from the  interlineation and the inference draw from thence as if this be a new  intention of the testator for the will be write complete and that he afterward  bethink himself he will give her the house for life only it be too uncertain a  suggestion and I can infer that this be a intention by way of new devise for  possible it may be a error in the copier and restore only by the testator  himself for the word belong come so near together may lead the copier into a  slip of one line and there be frequent instance in Greek and Latin manuscript  where this slip have happen from the same word stand too near together and  therefore I be of opinion the widow have no title to the household good c nor  the house garden c any long than her widowhood as to the clause of the devise  of the jewel coach chariot and coachhorse it be of a different consideration  for I may give one thing to a person for life together with a absolute  property in another unless the latter shall be appurtenant and appendant to  the thing before give but here the thing be of a quite different nature and  have no manner of relation to the house and garden and if Mr Fawkss  observation be just that the word of limitation be insert upon a new intention  then be place before the devise of jewel c be a indication of the testator  intention to exclude these last word and if they have not be exclude I shall  still have be of the same opinion because the limit word will have be more  natural place at the end of the whole devise to the wife together with jewel c  so long as she continue a widow and no long but whether I be right or not in  this construction there can be no great harm in permit the mother to keep  these thing in her possession till her son who be a infant of very tender year  come of age Lord Hardwicke order that the decree of the roll be vary by leave  out the clause mention already at the beginning of the case and declare that  the defendant Dorothy clarke late Dorothy Richard be entitle to the absolute  property of the jewel coach chariot and coachhorse give to her atkins by the  will of Mr John Richard but that she be entitle only to the use of the  testator household good furniture plate linen and china in his house at  Edmonton wherein he dwell or to the house belong during her widowhood and  order and decree that the defendant Dorothy and Samuel clarke her husband do  cause the same to be deliver over to the testator executor