d who resided in different parts of the world, viz., in England, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Antigua, Jamaica, and South Carolina. The addition of the word " poor," it has been thought, would admit a larger construction, and include whatever relations were objects of charity. But in other cases this has not been allowed. Neither perhaps would the word be considered of any effect in other respects, upon the ground of the difficulty of distinguishing between degrees of poverty; although that, and similar words have in some instances been considered as a substantial part of the description, and to entitle those only who answered to it; and in others to have rendered the devise void for uncertainty. Lord Redesdale also, where a testator bequeathed to his executor 1000l. to be distributed among his poor relations, seems to have thought that a relation, who was poor at the time of the testator's death, but became rich before the fund was distributed, could not claim. But his Lordship thought the testator's design was to give to them as objects of charity, and not merely as relations: and upon the whole, it has been observed, there appears to be great reason to contend that the true rule is, that the epithet poor, 708. h Bennett v. Honywood, Ambl. b Case cited 8 Vin. Ab. 289. Att. Gen. v. Buckland, cited Ambl. 71. 1 Ves. 231; and see Griffith v. Jones, 2 Freem. 96; though in 2 Ch. Rep. 394 it is different. ⚫ Carr v. Bedford, 2 Ch. Rep. 146. Brunsden v. Woolridge, 1 Dick, 380. Ambl. 507; and see Goodinge v. Goodinge, 1 Ves. 231. Ambl. 70, nomine Edge v. Salisbury. Widmore v. Woodroffe, Ambl. 636. Anon. 1 P. W. 327. Doyley v. Att. Gen. 4. Vin. Ab. 485, stated 7 See Carr Bedford, 2 Ch. Rep. 146. Gower v. Mainwaring, 2 Ves. 87. 110. Brunsden v. Woolridge, 1 Dick. 380. Ambl. 507. f Webb's case, 8 Vin. Ab. 47. Hazel v. Rumney, 1 Ver. 226, Mr. Raithby's note. Mahon v. Savage, 1 Sch. and Lef. 111. h See also Att. Gen. v. Price, 17 Ves. 371. Isaac v. Defriez, id. cited. iSugd. Pow. 517, 2d ed. necessitous, or the like, is merely nugatory, although certainly there is a considerable weight of authority in favour of the contrary doctrine. The mere circumstance of the testator's having given legacies to more distant relations is not suf ficient to vary the construction." But if from any expressions in the will it can be reasonably inferred what persons the testator intended by the word "relations" they of course will be entitled. As where a woman gave a residue to be divided between her relations, that is, the Greenwoods, the Everits, and the Dows: here the Everits, who were not within the degree of relationship limited by the statute, were decreed to take jointly with the Greenwoods and Dows, who were. And under a bequest to my nearest surviving relations," a brother and sister were held entitled in exclusion of nephews and nieces, children of a deceased brother: for there was no uncertainty in these words, and no necessity, therefore, for resorting to construction to confine or extend them. Nor will the statute be followed, where there is a discretionary power given to any person of selecting objects; and if a legacy is given among such relations as A. shall think fit, A. may give to any of the kindred, though not within the statute. But if v. Lowson, Ambl. 729. In Warburton u. Warburton, (2 Ver. 420. 1 Bro. P. C. 34,) which was the case of a bequest to daughters to be disposed of by them to the use of themselves, their brothers and sister, or such of them, and in such proportion as they should think most fit according to their needs and necessities; the eldest son was decreed to have a double share. he makes no distribution, and it is left to the decision of the Court what relations shall take, the next of kin only will be entitled, for the statute is the only guide the Court can have," It is not allowed to show by evidence what relations a testator intended to comprehend: and where therefore there was a bequest to descendants, a pedigree, found among the testator's papers, was not admitted to explain what was meant by the word descendants.c Evidence however is admissible to show the knowledge of the testator as to what relations he had.d g 29. But sce The same rule is applied to limit the extent of the word "kindred," as "relations." But in a bequest to the "next of kin in equal degree" brothers will exclude nephews and nieces. And it seems the same Kinskyrke construction would now be given to the words "next long. I My de of kin” alone. There has indeed been a difference Wom of opinion on this point. Lord Kenyon in such a. case thought the statute the rule to go by; and Mr. J. Buller held, that there was no difference between a devise to "the next of kin" and "relations." But Lord Thurlow, Lord Eldon, and Sir W. Grant, all expressed a doubt of this decision; and in a late case, in which under a marriage settlement certain monies were to go on the death of the wife without issue to her "nearest and next of kin:" Sir T. Plumer 1 Griffith v. Jones, id. 394; but see 2 f Wimbles v. Pitcher, 12 Ves. 433. Phillips v. Garth, 3 Bro. 64; and i See 3 Bro. 69. 14 Ves. 385. 19 Ves, 404. Coop. 277. held the wife's brother entitled in exclusion of the children of a deceased sister; and treated the case of Phillips v. Garth as overruled." C A wife and a husband are not of kin, nor, strictly, relations to each other. If a husband therefore bequeaths to his next of kin, that, prima facie, does not include his wife; and it is quite clear, that, if a married woman under a power by settlement bequeaths to her "next of kin," it would be impossible to hold, that under the construction of such a will, without more, the husband would take as sole next of kin. So under bequests among the testator's "relations according to the statute for distribution of intestate's estates where no will is made;" to "such of the testator's relations as would be entitled thereto by the laws in force of distribution to be divided as the said laws direct; "d "to be divided amongst my next of kin as if I had died intestate," a wife was held not entitled to share. But it seems clearly to have been the intentions of the testators in these cases not to include their wives under the terms. Lord Alvanley held a husband to be included in the word " family" upon the true construction of the will; but his Honour thought that the word would not include him, except from the context it must do so. Relations by affinity are not included in the general term "relations." So where the residue and see 1 Bro. 33. Davies v. Baily, 1 Ves. 84. • Garrick v. Lord Camden, 14 Ves. 372; and see Nicholls v. Savage, 18 Ves. 52. f M'Leroth v. Bacon, 5 Ves. 159. Maitland v. Adair, 3 Ves. 231. was to be divided between the testatrix's grandchildren named in her will; Lord Northington thought there was no colour for considering the widow of a grandson as a grandchild." But a bequest to relations by blood or marriage will extend to those who have married persons entitled under the sta= tute. And the whole and the half blood will take together as " next of kin." It seems not very easy to lay down any general rule as to the word "representatives." In a casewhere a testatrix gave the residue of her personal estate to A. and B. (her executors) and six other Butter 1 My & Me 465 persons equally, &c.; and directed, that in case of the Jabar Miles 470. death of any of them before her, the share of the one the Rooman so dying should go to and be had and received by one to 4. his or her legal representatives; and A. died before thon the testatrix, who died shortly afterwards; and then. by. Howell-JMquestion was between A.'s executors, his residuary. Blo legatees, and his next of kin : the Master of the Rolls'57. Both rice was / Cat.6. Wile was of opinion that the true construction was, that ndo 16 dm. 329 die by legal representatives the testatrix meant such-n persons as could claim A.'s property in their own* 2 a и right, which he declared to be those who would have met 7 h been entitled as next of kin of A. at the death of the 225. James effe testatrix, in case he had at that time died intestate. So sad. 218 While in a case not long afterwards in which a cre- drew ditor accepted a satisfaction of 10s. in the pound. from his debtor, and then died; after which the widow of the debtor devised certain estates in trust to raise a sum equal to 10s. in the pound, and pay |