case Longford versus eire see will Act wm and Vict c S Lord chancellor  Macclesfield Eq can ab pl pl a witness prove a will of land swear that he  subscribe it in the same room and at the testator request hold good though not  say in the testator presence the lady Clutterbuck before her marriage with Mr  Rumsey of Bristol do with his consent convey her estate to trustee to such use  and for such estate a she shall by deed or wonder ill or by any write in the  nature of a will appoint have afterward marry Mr Rumsey she make her will and  thereby devise these land there be peer William er p four witness to the will  one of who be go beyond sea two swear that they see the will execute by the  testatrix and that they subscribe the same in the presence of the testatrix  the three swear that he subscribe the will as a witness in the same room and  at the request of the testatrix the Lord Cowper before who the cause be first  hear doubt as to the proof of the execution of this will but will declare no  opinion on the point until far application say that the heir at law who be  then a infant may by that time come of age and now this matter come on again  before the Lord Macclesfield it be urge saint that the witness subscribe this  will in the same room with the testatrix be the same as in her presence nay it  have be resolve in sir George Shierss case that though the witness subscribe  their name to the will in another room yet there happen to be a window in that  room through which peer William the testator may see they it be well enough  dly it be insist that if the will be not good as such yet this be a write in  nature of a will and forasmuch as the appointee in this case n be not in by  the ill or write of appointment but by the original conveyance the write in  question will be a good appointment though not a good will Lord chancellor the  proper way of examine a witness to prove a will as to land be that the witness  shall not only prove the execute of the will by the testator and his own  subscribe it in the presence of the testator but likewise the rest of the  witness subscribe their name in the presence of the testator and then one see  Bootle v Blundell Ves coop witness prove the full execution of a will since he  prove that the testator execute ib and likewise that the three witness  subscribe it in his presence but this be not do in the principal case dly he  hold that the bare subscribe the will by the witness in the same room do no  necessary imply it to be in the testator presence for it may be in a corner of  the room in a clandestine fraudulent way and then it will not be a subscribe  by the witness in the testator presence mere because in the same room but that  here it be swear by the witness that he subscribe the will at the request of  the testatrix and in the same room this can not be fraudulent and be therefore  well enough dly his lordship much doubt whether this will will have be a good  appointment have it not be execute pursuant to the statute of fraud because  when a power be give to appoint the use of land by peer William deed or will  the will must be intend such a one as be proper for the disposition of land  vide Wagstaff v Wagstaff post Vol two consequent subscribe by three witness in  the presence of the testator for this be within all the inconvenience that the  statute of fraud intend to prevent and the other word in the nature of a will  mean the same as a will which must therefore be subscribe by witness in the  presence of the testator but for the reason aforesaid it be declare this be a  good will both as to the real and personal estate vide dorm v thurland post  Vol two Stonehouse v Evelyn post Vol III Gryle v Gryle atk Grayson v Atkinson  ves Carlton v griffin burr right v price Doug casson v dade bro c c as to the  several requisite of the statute of fraud with respect to devise the follow be  some of the decision on the that section of the statute of fraud seal be not a  sign Ellis v smith Ves jun smith v Evans will the will need not be subscribe  by the testator provide he write his name in any part of it so as to  authenticate it Lemayne v Stanley lev cook v parson pre Charles the signature  need not be affix in the presence of the witness a acknowledgement of it to  they by the testator be enough dorm v thurland Stonehouse v Evelyn Grayson v  Atkinson ub sup Westbeach v Kennedy v b the acknowledgement need not be make  to nor the will attest by the different witness at the same time cook v parson  ub sup Jones v lake atk n the testator need not actual see the witness  subscribe the attestation shire v Glascock salk Longford v Eyre sup casson v  dade ub sup but he must be in such a situation that he may see they Broderick  v Broderick ante do v manifold m S he must be sensible of what be pass right v  price ub sup the will of a blind man need not be read over to he in the  presence of the witness longchamp v fish n r attestation by a marksman be good  Harrison v Harrison Ves peer William er p