case cook versus Oakley et all sir John Trevor master of the roll Eq can ab pl  pl one be on shipboard and entitle to part of a considerable leasehold estate  by the death of his father which he do not know he have a right to make his  will at sea and devise to his mother if live his ring and make a his executor  and devise to a his red box and all thing not before bequeathe this shall not  pass the leasehold interest or what the testator do not know he be entitle to  but shall be restrain to thing the same noble birth Gilbert cook one of the  five child of Benjamin cook go beyond sea in his father life after which his  father be possess of a considerable leasehold estate devise two three of his  say estate to his five child equal and one three to his wife and die then the  wife die have devise her three to her child equal afterward Gilbert the son  have be beyond sea many year and be g on shipboard make his will and give to  his mother if alive his gold ring button and chest of clothes and to his love  friend the defendant Francis Goslin who be on board with he his red box arrack  and all thing not before bequeathe and make he sole executor peer William it  appear in the cause and indeed by gilbert will that lie do not know that his  mother be actual dead and consequent can not know what estate be give he by  his mother and though he know his father be dead yet he be not inform what  will his father have make or what his father have leave or whether he be  entitle to any part of his estate and it be insist on behalf of the testator  brother and sister that here be a express legacy give to the executor  videlicet the testator red box and arrack it can not be presume but that if  the testator have also intend to give he his share in the leasehold premise he  will have mention they and if he do not know he have any such share in the  leasehold estate then it be plain he can not intend to dispose of it and the  devise of all thing not before bequeathe can not be intend to pass the  leasehold interest or real chatter but mere personal thing only such as be on  board the ship or thing the same noble birth with those abovementioned that it  be to be intend he do not know that he be entitle to any part of this  leasehold estate of his father in regard he will in all probability have give  some share thereof to his mother to who he give and for who he seem to have  design the most valuable part of his substance for he give to her his ring  button and chest of clothes it wonder that Goslin be a mere stranger and on  the other hand the testator have so near relation as brother and sister and  that the will have be make on shipboard peer William er p the master of the  roll decree Reg lib a foe that Goslin the executor shall be but a trustee as  to the surplus for the testator peer William S brother and sister but that  with respect to the button ring c give to the mother they be lapse legacy by  reason of the mother die in the testator lifetime and shall therefore fall to  the executor also upon this occasion his honour mention a case that he  remember to have be adjudge where a man make a will and appoint I S who be no  relation his executor afterward he go beyond sea where he become governor of  one of the plantation and send over for a English woman of his acquaintance  who he marry and have child by and die without any actual revocation of his  will yet it be determine that this total alteration of the testator  circumstance be a imply revocation of the will and in affirmance of this sir  Joseph Jekyll cite this case from the civil law pater believer son suum be  corpse one to put in place hredem son house Of persons what institution vis be  no one vide cic de a speaker Cantab Edward page and dig l ult de heir Inst  vide Trafford v Berridge Eq can ab pl Timewell v Perkins atk Cornforth v boon  ves Rawlings v Jennings Ves anon ante do v Weatherley east Bland v lamb I W  Stuart v Bute dow Cavendish v Cavendish I Cox not as executor but as legatee  of a particular residue videlicet of what the testator have on board the ship  which legacy exclude he from the general residue vide petit v smith ante this  case appear in another part of our author report to have be that of pyre v  Eyre which the master of the roll sir John Trevor say be report to he by Treby  c I and some eminent civilian see also the case of lug v lug salk ld ray where  a will of personal estate be presume to be revoke by alteration of  circumstance b t more particular the case of brown v Thompson hear at the roll  Dec where sir John Trevor hold that a subsequent marriage and have child be a  revocation of a will of land and dismiss the will of the legatee claim legacy  charge on the estate by such will I find indeed in the register book that Lord  keeper wright in the July follow reverse the order of dismission and decree  the payment of the legacy but in the abridgement of case in equity page it be  say that it be on the particular circumstance of that case and that my Lord  keeper allow the statute of fraud and perjury do not extend to a imply  revocation subsequent marriage and have child construe a revocation of a will  parson v Lanoe Amb Wellington v Wellington burr Jackson v hurlock Amb Eden  Christopher v Christopher burr dick spragg v stone Amb Brady v Cubitt dougl  where many other case be cite from which it appear that no change in the  situation of a testator can amount to more than a presumptive revocation of a  devise of land and consequent that evidence be admissible to rebut such  presumption that a disposition of the whole estate will be presumptive revoke  by a subsequent marriage and birth of a child say qure whether either of those  circumstance single or only a partial disposition of the real property will  raise the presumption to constitute a presumptive revocation of a devise of  land there must be both marriage and the birth of a child ex part Ilchester  Ves do v Barford m S the testator must have be childless or at least have have  no son sheath v York I v b the devise must include the whole estate Kennebel v  scrafton east and the new object of duty must be leave unprovide for ib  whether declaration of the testator can be receive as evidence to rebut the  presumption when raise have be much question and they will probable now be  reject do v Lancashire t r Gibbons v Caunt Ves Kennebel v scrafton ub sup Ves  pole v summer Ves and see note to Jackson v hurlock Eden Fonb Eq note b note  to duppa v Mayo williams sand a peer William er p