case MONTGOMERY against the attorneygeneral in chancery Michaelmas term Geo  the court of chancery will not grant a new trial after two trial at bar  although the verdict be contrary to each other unless such new trial appear  necessary to the justice of the case from new evidence which can not he have  on the former trial S c atk in this cause there have be one trial at bar and  verdict in the common plea in favour of the will and a subsequent trial at bar  and verdict before the court of king bench against the will and in favour of  the heir at law Mr attorneygeneral now move for a new trial because this be  the case of a inheritance it be not to be bind by one trial nor where there be  two trial and verdict against verdict that though last verdict be against a  heir at law yet he be a heir against who the testator have express a great  disregard in his lifetime that the will be solemnly sign in the presence of  three witness and two codicil prove to be write by Elias turner the testator  own hand that there be nothing at all absurd or inconsistent in the will which  first provide for the widow and then bestow the fortune in favour and for the  support of decay merchant in London that in the case of Leighton v sir Edward  Leighton a Peer wms a there be four trial in ejectment Hardwicke Lord  chancellor the judge of the court of king bench before who the last trial be  have certify to I that they be not only not dissatisfy but quite satisfy with  the modern report verdict against which a new trial be now pray and as they be  so I have reason to be so too and can take it that anything improper pass at  the trial if there be any ground for a new trial it must arise from collateral  circumstance and not from such as be submit in evidence before the last jury  it be insist for the new trial that here be verdict against verdict for there  have be former a verdict at guildhall before will Lord chief justice of the  common plea and there the jury find the testator compos chin and the chief  justice certify also that he be satisfy with the verdict modern report er p  but all this be no reason why a three trial shall be grant for a trial at bar  be a most solemn act a Reg v Bewdley Peer wms baker v hunt atk a and ought to  have more weight than a verdict at nisi prius but it be not single the  difference of the two trial but the weight of the new evidence appear in the  last trial which be grant upon fresh evidence videlicet letter from one ploy  which be not produce at the former trial and he can not be crossexamined as to  they upon the former trial and I think this fresh evidence so very material  that I grant the heir at law a opportunity of have they submit to the scrutiny  of a jury this evidence it seem have have the same weight with the special  jury and the court of king bench as with I which give a further sanctity to  this verdict beside the solemnity of the trial there be another circumstance  which be a ingredient in the case that this last verdict at bar have be find  by a jury of gentleman of the county of Essex where the latter part of the  life of Elias turner the testator be spend and they be more proper from their  private knowledge to try his sanity than a jury of London he have leave the  city for some year there be another reason to impeach the verdict in the  common plea at guildhall that this be a devise of a charity for the use of the  city of London and it be natural for man of London to wish well to this  charity of which they themselves may be partaker or their friend and this  without any plain partiality or corruption of mind and though I do not do this  to impeach their conscience yet it lessen the credit of their verdict and must  without their think it make they a little partial as to what have be say that  there have be a great many proceed in favour of the charity in this court yet  they be all ground upon and consequential to the first verdict and as that be  now lie out of the case all those must necessary fall along with it as to the  case of Leighton v Leighton that be a bill for a perpetual injunction and upon  a legal title there have be two trial at nisi prius and two at bar but that be  not like the present case for that be upon a legal title and at a time when  the doctrine modern report of grant perpetual injunction be not very well  settle in this court the motion be deny and his lordship go upon the equity  reserve