case onion versus tyrer I p wms sub nom onion v tyrer pale yellow distinguish  Tupper v Tupper f king I follow Nevil v Boddam Bea v refer to ford v de pontes  Bea v explain Quinn v butler l r Eq see also dancer v Crabb p d Alexander v  Kirkpatrick l r Sc App in re Fleetwood Sidgreaves v brewer Ch d Lord  chancellor Feb pre Ch Eq can ab pl S c one devise his land by will attest by  three witness and afterward make another will of his land which revoke all  former will but this will be not duly execute the last will be no will and  void will not amount to a revocation of the former Mr tyrer in make a will  duly attest by three subscribe witness and thereby have dispose of his real  estate and be afterward mind to make some alteration in his will in the year  he make a second will touch his real estate and with a clause Vernon chancery  case in it of revoke all former will but there be no table in the room where  the testator lie sick and subscribe his will the three subscribe witness do  not attest it in his presence but go into a low room out of the testator sight  and there write their name as witness to the publish this latter will and it  be also in proof in the cause that there be two part of his former will one  whereof be in his custody he call for that which be in his own custody and  direct his wife to cancel it and the witness swear she hear her tear it and  the question now be whether the former will be well revoke or not first it be  resolve that although there be a express clause in the latter will of revoke  all former will yet that latter will be void the witness not attest the same  in the testator presence that will not amount to a revocation it be intend to  operate as a will and not otherwise as a instrument of revocation but where a  bill be subscribe by three witness before who testator have previous sign it  declare it to be his will but do not sign it in their presence such  declaration be equivalent to sign it before they and such will be good within  the five section of the statute of fraud and be also a good will of revocation  within the six section of that statute Ellis v smith that may Ves and so it be  adjudge in the case of Eggleston and speak Mod sir Bart shower report and in  the case of Hilton and king Le v second where there be duplicate and two part  of the former will in case the testator duly cancel and tear that part which  be in his own custody or keep that will be a effectual cancel of the will  although the other part or duplicate remain whole and cancel and it be so  resolve in sir Edward seymour case three Lord chancellor be of opinion that  the former will stand good for the latter will be void and not operate as a  will will not amount to a revocation and as to the actual cancel of the former  will the evidence be not full and positive that it be do the witness think she  hear the wife tear it it be plain he do it only upon a supposition Vernon  chancery case that he have make a latter will at the same time and both will  as to the main be much to the same effect and with little variation as to the  disposition of the real estate and he do not cancel it with a design to revoke  the devise as to the real estate but intend to do the same thing by a latter  will and in case it have be a good cancel of the will at law it ought to be  relieve against and the will set up again in equity under the head of accident  and decree it accord vide p win SC and very full note there et vide  observation of Hardwicke Lord chancellor on the principal case in  attorneygeneral v Lloyd ves Burkitt v Burkitt ante p and case in not there see  also the note to duppa v Mayo sand g et seq that edit Vernon chancery case er  p