case hoil against clark a will revoke all former will though not sign by the  testator in the presence of the three witness be sufficient to revoke a former  will for that clause of the statute car c which require that the testator  shall sign in the presence of the witness only refer to the last member or  other wait and not to the first other will or codicil  Ante post lev salk vern  Esp dig Mod Cowp brown Cas par brown Cas par Peer wms Com Rep Cowp this be a  special verdict in ejectment for land in Wetherfield in the county of Essex  upon the demise of Abigail pheasant the jury find that one John clark be seize  in fee of the land in question who by his last will in write bear date the  fourteenth day of September in the year devise the same to Benjamin clark for  life so to his first and second son c in tail male and for default of such  issue then to his two sister for life remainder over c this will be attest by  one witness only they find that the say John clark make another will date the  six day of February which be thirteen year after the make of his first will  and that by this last will he revoke all former will and testament by he make  they find a endorsement on this will write by the testator himself in these  word my will and testament date the that of February and then publish by I in  the presence of three witness they find that this last will be so publish and  attest by three witness in his presence but that it be not sign by the  testator in their presence see vezey dougl notorious facts a they find that  Benjamin clark enter and devise the land to mary Micklethwaite who make a  lease thereof to the plaintiff for three year upon who the defendant enter  this case be argue at the bar and in this term at the bench seriatim the  single question be whether this last will not be duly execute accord to the  statute car c be a revocation of the first will or not it be admit by all that  it be a good will to pass the personal estate but as to the point of  revocation the court be divide Lutwich justice argue that it be not a  revocation he agree that if the last modern er p will have any respect to the  first it must be as a modern revocation or not at all which revocation must  depend upon the construction and exposition of the six paragraph in the  statute of fraud c the word whereof be that no devise in write of land c nor  any clause thereof shall be revoke otherwise than by some other will or  codicil in write or other write declare the same or by burn cancel tear or  obliterate the same by the testator himself or in his presence and by his  direction or consent but all devise of land c shall remain and continue in  force until burn cancel tear or obliterate by the testator or his direction in  mariner aforesaid or unless the same be alter by some other will or codicil in  write or other write of the devisor sign in the presence of three witness  declare the same so that the question will be whether a will which revoke a  former will ought to be sign by the testator in the presence of three witness  it be clear that a will by which land be devise ought to be so sign and why  shall not a will which revoke another will have the same formality the statute  seem to be plain that it shall for it say that a will shall not be revoke but  by some will or codicil in write or other write of the devisor sign by he in  the presence of three or four witness declare the same which last clause be a  entire sentence in the disjunctive and appoint that the write which revoke a  will must be sign in the presence of three witness c before the make of this  Act it be sufficient that the testator give direction to make his will though  he do never see it when make which mischief be now remedy not in write the  will but that the party himself shall sign it in the presence of three witness  and this not be so sign but only publish by the testator in their presence it  be therefore no good revocation street justice be of a contrary opinion that  this be a good revocation that the word in the five paragraph of this statute  which alter the law be that all devise of land c shall be in write and sign by  the party so devise the same or by some other person in his presence and by  his express direction and shall be attest and subscribe in the presence of the  say devisor by three or four credible witness in which paragraph there be two  part first the act of the devisor which be to sign the will but not a word  that he shall subscribe his name in the presence of three witness modern  second the act of the witness videlicet that they shall attest and subscribe  the will in the presence of the devisor or else the will to be void but the  six paragraph be pen after another manner as to the revocation of a will which  must be by some codicil in write or other write declare the same sign in the  presence of three witness n here be a write declare that it shall e revoke not  express but by implication and though that clause in the disjunctive which say  that the revocation must be by some write of the devisor sign in the presence  of three witness c yet in the same paragraph it be say that it may be revoke  by a codicil or will in write and therefore a exposition ought to be make upon  the whole paragraph that the intention of the law may more full appear such a  construction have be make upon a whole sentence where part thereof be in the  disjunctive as for instance a man be possess of a lease by seize who assign it  to another and covenant that at the time of the assignment it be a good true  and indefeasible lease and that the plaintiff shall enjoy it without  interruption of the seize or any claim under he in this case disseizee reenter  and though the covenant be in the disjunctive to defend the assignee from the  seize or any claim under he yet he have undertake for quiet enjoyment and it  be a indefeasible lease it be adjudge that a exposition ought to be make upon  the whole sentence and so the the plaintiff have judgement Herbert chief  justice be of the same opinion with street justice the law of this case be say  to have be confirm by Lord Hardwicke in the case of Ellis v smith a man make a  will revoke a former will it be attest by three witness in his presence accord  to the devise clause of car c but it be not sign by he in their presence  accord to the revoke clause in the say statute but after he have sign it on  the witness be call into the room he acknowledge it to be his handwriting and  seal point with his finger to the will one question be whether it be well  execute as a revocation and by Hardwicke chancellor the word sign in the  presence of three witness refer to the next precede word other write only and  not to a will or codicil and so it be determine in the case of hoil v clark  Richardson on will Bac Abr and by Gilbert C B a revocation may be either by a  subsequent will sufficient effectual to alter the disposition of the former  will or by a write declare it to be revoke gilbert Dev salk see the case of  Grayson v Atkinson will vezey and Ellis v smith Michaelmas term Geo carter v  price Douglas but see the case of Eccleston v speak that a will not attest  accord to the devise clause in the presence of the testator nor inconsistent  with the devise in a former will can operate as a revocation of such former  will for that for this purpose it must be a good will in all circumstance post  show see also the case of onion v tire Peer wms Prec Ch and Powel on devise a  modern er p trinity term the four of James the second in the king bench sir  Robert wright Knt chief justice sir Richard Holloway Knt sir Thomas Powel Knt  sir Richard Allibon Knt justice sir Thomas powis Knt attorneygeneral sir  William William Knt solicitor general