might argue, “That there was no use in adding the words ’as may be chosen,’ if the matter was left to the selection of the heir; for if no such words had been inserted, there could have been no doubt at all that the heir might have given whatever he himself chose.  So that it was downright madness, if he wished to take precautions in favour of his heir, to add words which might have been wholly left out without such omission prejudicing his heir’s welfare.”

Wherefore, it will be exceedingly advisable to employ this species of argument in such causes:—­“If he had written with this intention he would not have employed that word; he would not have placed that word in that place;” for it is from such particulars as these that it is easiest to collect the intention of the writer.  In the next place, it is necessary to inquire when the document was drawn up, in order that it may be understood what it was likely that he should have wished at such a time.  Afterwards it will be advisable to point out, by reference to the topics furnished by the deliberative argument, what is more useful and what more honourable to the testator to write, and to the adversary to prove; and it will be well for both parties to employ common topics, if there is any room for extending either argument.

XLII.  A controversy arises with respect to the letter of the document and to its meaning, when one party employs the very words which are set down in the paper; and the other applies all his arguments to that which he affirms that the framer of the document intended.  But the intention of the framer of the document must be proved by the man who defends himself, by reference to that intention, to have always the same object in view and the same meaning; and it must also, either by reference to the action or to some result, be adapted to the time which the inquiry concerns.  It must be proved always to have the same object in view, in this way:—­“The head of a house, at a time when he had no children, but had a wife, inserted this clause in his will:  ’If I have a son or sons born to me, he or they is or are to be my heir or heirs.’  Then follow the ordinary provisions.  After that comes the following clause:  ’If my son dies before he comes into the property, which is held in trust for him, then,’ says the clause, ’you shall be my reversionary heir.’  He never has a son.  His next of kin raise a dispute with the man who is named as the heir, in the case of the testator’s son dying before he comes into the property which his guardians are holding for him.”  In this case it cannot be said that the meaning of the testator ought to be made to suit the time or some particular result, because that intention alone is proved on which the man who is arguing against the language of the will relies, in order to defend his own right to the inheritance.