250 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



his trouble if he could find a pur- 

 chaser. Mr. Kirk not being able 

 to dispose of it, it was returned 

 to the deceased, who then offered 

 it to Mr. Paterson, the executor, 

 for 50 guineas, in part of a debt 

 he owed him. Mr. Paterson had 

 it on trial for three months, but 

 then returned it, thinking that it 

 did not keep good time. The de- 

 ceased then sent it, in December 

 ISl-a, to the maker, Mr. High- 

 field, of Oxford, to be regulated, 

 who did not return it till the 7th 

 of August, 1813, at which time 

 the deceased was confined to his 

 bed by the illness of which he af- 

 tex'wards died. It was, therefore, 

 deposited in a drawer, but the de- 

 ceased was very particular in giv- 

 ing directions for its being cai'e- 

 fully wound up, &c. He always 

 wore it, except when it was sent 

 to be regulated, when he re.'vumed 

 the use of his brother Luke's sil- 

 ver watch, and had that in use 

 when he was taken ill, and after- 

 wards when he made his will, but 

 the gold one had been then i-e- 

 turned to him. He alwaj's seem- 

 ed desirous to dispose of the gold 

 one, and at one time said, " a 

 person gone to Ireland had got it 

 on trial, and he hoped he should 

 get rid of it ;" and at another 

 time "that he had sent it to be 

 reg-ulated, : in hopes that when 

 perfect he might get rid of it, as 

 it was too high priced for him." 



Dr. Jeimer, for the legatee, 

 ocntended that the deceased bro- 

 ther Luke's watch was the bgst 

 watch he had when he made his 

 will in 181 1, and tins Avas the 

 watch he then intended to leave 

 to his nephew, with the other ar- 

 ticles and a sum of money. But 

 having subsequently acquired a 



Daore valuaWe one, it was most 

 probable the expres&Lon " my 

 watch," referred to that, as the 

 sum of money was then omitted. 

 It was true the deceased liad at 

 one time the intention of selling 

 this watch, but this intention was 

 not known to his friends, and he 

 even declared to one of them that 

 he meant to give it to his nephew. 

 It was ev'ulent the words of the 

 bequest could only apply to the 

 gold watch, or his brother Luke's : 

 the gold watch was the one he 

 most usually wore, and on which 

 he set the highest value, and the 

 expression " my watch," was 

 therefore most likely to relate to 

 that. In his former will he had 

 designated the silver watch as his 

 brother Luke's, but had not so 

 designated it in the latter, and 

 therefore could not mean the same 

 watch he did then, and if not the 

 same, then the gold one could be 

 the only one meant. He trusted 

 therefore the Court would award 

 the gold one to his client, with 

 costs. 



Dr. Swabey and Dr. Lushing- 

 ton for the executor, argued that 

 the bequest being ambiguous, not 

 in terms but from fact-s, would 

 adiirit of the production of evi- 

 dence to interpret the contents, 

 that the onus of producing this 

 evidence, and of shewing to the 

 Court that the deceased clearly in- 

 tended the gold watch was upon 

 the legatee, because he was the 

 party making that allegation, and 

 consequently bound to prove it, 

 and was to be considered in the 

 light of a creditor, bound to make 

 out his claim. By law, the exe- 

 cutor was the party most favour- 

 ed, and, therefore, if, after all the 

 explanation given, the matter 



should 



