case attorney general versus barn ux Eq can ab pl pre Ch S c a devise freehold  land for a charity but the will be not execute in the presence of three  witness adjudge the will be void as a will it can not operate as a appointment  within the statute of Elizabeth but such a will may operate as a appointment  as to copyhold land where there be a surrender to the use of the will they  pass by the surrender and not by the will the attorneygeneral at the relation  of Sidney Sussex college in Cambridge set out that one dr Johnson a member of  that college by a will in write mention Vernon chancery case to devise his  land to the college to maintain two scholar to augment vicarages and to buy  presentation and to maintain widow and by a codicil give other charity to the  will there be no witness at all but to the codicil there be three witness who  subscribe in the testator presence first as to such of the land as be copyhold  it be agree they be well appoint they pass by surrender and not by the will  and it be say to have be consider as settle ever since the principal case that  the statute of fraud do not extend to customary I e copyhold estate per  Hardwicke Lord chancellor Tuffnell v page atk attorneygeneral v Andrews ves  attorney general v Sawtell atk Wagstaff v Wagstaff p wms Habergham v Vincent  bro Ch Rep Ves jun caryi v askew bro Ch Rep Cox do v Danvers east but as to  customary freehold where it be presume there be no custom to surrender to the  use of the will they be within the statute both as to the legal estate and the  trust Hussey v grills Amb so the statute embrace equitable as well as legal  estate in freehold land dict per Hardwicke Lord chancellor Adlington v Cann  atk second it be also agree as to the freehold the will as a will be void for  although there be three subscribe witness to the codicil yet that will not  support the will and it be so adjudge in c b in the case of Le a and Libb  Carth by the report there it appear there be two witness to the will and two  to the codicil Vernon chancery case er p but the great question be admit it  void as a will if good as a appointment Griffith flood case and Collisons case  hob and more it be insist that the statute of fraud and perjury make will  absolute void if there be not three subscribe witness thereto and the statute  be to be strict take to prevent fraud in the time when people be easy to be  impose on Lord keeper take time to consider of it and afterward adjudge that  the testator intend to dispose by will that the write import a will and be  void as a will can not operate as a appointment so jenner v Harper p wms pre  Ch S c consider as the settle doctrine Wagstaff v Wagstaff p wms