case fawkner v watts march the saint at the roll SC precede if a child or  child of a freeman of London be advance in the father lifetime they shall be  say to be full advance unless the quantum of the advancement appear in write  under his hand salk S p civil v rich vern dean v ld Delaware vern cleaver v  spurling p W Barnham v Philips cite post vol hear v barber post vol Hume v  Edward post vol Elliot v collier Ves will S c post vol S c har   Litt b note  the advancement of mark that upon her first marriage be now full charge in the  answer of the defendant it stand for judgement in the paper of this day master  of the roll there can be no manner of doubt but the plaintiff if mary have any  right to the orphanage share in the personal estate of her father Mr Everett  be equal entitle Elliot v collier Ves post vol SC will S c it be insist on  behalf of the defendant that mary before her marriage with fawkner have a  former husband Paxton that the first marriage be with the entire approbation  of her father and that he have advance her at that time and that the quantum  of the portion do not appear and that the rule lie down in all the case be  that if a daughter marry with a father consent and be advance but the quantum  of the advancement be not ascertain by some write under the father hand it  must be consider as a full advancement and will bar the child of its orphanage  share the first case cite on the part of the defendant be civil v rich vern c  way atkins er p a child advance in marriage with a portion be bar of the  orphanage part unless the certainty of such portion appear by write under the  father hand the next case which be subsequent in point of time be chase v box  Eq case Abr Videathe custom of London certify there in the first case it be  say by a write under the hand and seal of the father in the second sign with  his name or mark but as this be not a circumstance in the present case I need  not take any notice of it there be another case in cleaver v spurling wms if a  freeman have advance his child on marriage and the certainty of that  advancement do not appear under the freeman S hand this be to be take as a  full advancement the result of these case be that if a child or child be  advance in the father lifetime they shall be say to be full advance unless the  quantum of the advancementappears in write under the father hand but then the  counsel for the plaintiff have endeavour to make a difference when there be  only one child as in the present case to distinguish it from all other case  and for this purpose have cite the case of shepherd v Newland before Lord  Macclesfield and reheard afterward before Lord king atkins but notwithstanding  the rule as lie down there be certain true yet it do not come up to the  present case for I take the custom to be the same with regard to a only child  as where there be many child and that if a father advance such a child and the  quantum do not appear in write it be a full and complete advancement the next  consideration will be upon the evidence whether the first marriage be with the  father consent and whether there be any advancement it seem if the marriage be  against the father consent that alone will bar the orphanage part Hume v  Edward post vol now from the proof S that have be read there be no manner of  doubt but the father be well satisfy with the match for it appear he be  cheerful on the wedding day dine with his daughter and her husband after the  ceremony be over and express great satisfaction at the match as to the proof  of the father declaration of sum of money advance as a portion with mary to Mr  Paxton I do not think they be proper evidence in the present ease for it will  be extreme hard if parole evidence of a father declaration shall be allow to  debar a child of her orphanage share cleaver v spurling p W but the same rule  will not hold as to any declaration of the husband in regard to a advancement  in marriage with the daughter of a freeman for the proof of Mr Paxtons  declaration here be very strong and must be admit as evidence and it be so  hold in the case of dean v Lord delawar vern S c and there be great reason it  shall be so because it be a declaration against his interest as it cut he off  from the orphanage share which he be entitle to in the right of his wife I be  likewise of opinion that the declaration of the wife of which there be several  proof be evidence foe bind the husband for be make during the coverture with  the first husband I see no reason why it shall not bind as much as if the  declaration have be make after the death of the first husband and before her  marriage with the other there be a circumstance too in this case of the  testator borrow pound the very day of his daughter marriage with Mr Paxton and  put it into a purse with pound more in order to give it to her husband and the  husband go into another room with the father who have the purse in his hand  and when they come out he declare he have receive part of his wife portion  this have a good deal of weight assist with the rest of the evidence there  have be no write attempt to be show on the part of the plaintiff under the  hand of the father to ascertain what the advancement be but his counsel have  insist though there be no particular write yet that it may appear what the  advancement be by atkins one of the father book and therefore the court ought  to order his book to be bring before a master to inspect as be do in the case  of dean v Lord delawar if it do appear to I in the present case what it be  that the father have advance by some book write in his own hand it may be a  ground to direct such a inquiry whether it be a full advancement upon be  compare with the orphanage share but as there be no such suggestion at all by  the bill that there be any such book I shall not be justify in direct such a  inquiry atkins er p upon the whole I do not think the plaintiff entitle to any  orphanage share of the late Mr Everetts personal estate the next question be  with regard to maintenance whether there shall be any allowance for the time  Francis Everett Paxton a infant and the son of mary by her first husband live  with his mother I shall not dispute but every father and mother by the law of  nature be under a obligation to maintain their own child but yet this may be  vary by circumstance for suppose the father or mother shall be in a low or  mean condition in the world the court will order especial in the case of a  mother that the child shall be maintain out of a provision leave to it by a  collateral relation see butler v butler post vol roach v Garvan Ves Hugh v  Hugh bro Charles Rep Andrews v Partington bro Charles Rep but here the  maintenance be only for six month which be so small that it will not bear the  expense of send it to a master therefore let this demand for maintenance be  set against the cost for the demand of the orphanage part and the bill be  dismiss without cost general