case Eggleston and another against speak alias petit Trinity term will mary  roll the answer of a guardian to a bill in chancery against his ware can be  read in evidence in a court of law to conclude the infant S c show S c Carth S  c comb vent ld ray Prec Ch Abr Eq Peer wms Bac Abr bro Cas parliament  inquisition and herald book admit to prove pedigree term Rep term Rep a will  dispose of land though attest by three witness be not a revocation of a former  will within the word car c or other write declare the same unless the  attestation be in the presence of the testator although it express revoke all  former will ante vern Eq Cas lev burr atk Eq can Abr Ch Rep Powel on Dev Bl  Rep burr Peer wms and see the case of Ellis v smith f Vezeys Rep this be a  trial at the bar by a Wiltshire jury in a ejectment bring by the plaintiff as  heir at law to Ann speak who die seize in fee of the land in question upon not  guilty plead this question arise at the trial whether the answer of a guardian  in chancery shall be read as evidence in this court to conclude the infant  there be modern some opinion that it ought to be read and the defendant  counsel insist on the contrary eyres justice be the puisne judge be send to  the court of common plea then sit to know their opinion who return make this  report that the modern er p judge of that court be all of opinion that such  answer ought not to be read as evidence for it be only to bring the infant  into court and to make he a party then the plaintiff proceed to prove their  title as heir at law videlicet by several inquisition which be bring into  court and by the herald office the defendant title likewise be thus prove  videlicet that the lady speak be seize in fee c do by will date in march  devise the land to John petit for life remainder to the defendant and his heir  for ever that the lady speak die so seize that John speak the tenant for life  and father to the defendant be also dead c this will be prove by several  witness one of who likewise depose that my lady speak make two other will  subsequent to this now produce and a minister prove that she burn a will in  the month of December which be in the year then the plaintiff produce another  will make by her at Christmas attest by three witness but not in the presence  of my lady so that though it may not be a good will to dispose the estate yet  the counsel insist that it be a good revocation of the other for it be a write  sufficient for that purpose within the six paragraph of the statute car c of  fraud which enact that all devise of land 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 or else shall be utter void and of  none effect and that no devise in write of land tenement or hereditament nor  any clause thereof shall be revocable 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 and consent but all devise and bequest of land shall remain and  continue in force until the same be burn tear cancel or obliterate by the  testator or his direction in manner 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 or four witness declare the same the case of sir George  shears Carth salk a be now mention who will be carry out of the chamber where  he then be into a lobby and sign there by the witness but one of they swear  that there be a window out of that room to his chamber through which the  testator may see the witness as he lie in his bed the jury upon this evidence  find this special verdict videlicet that Ann speak be seize in fee c do on the  that day of march make her will and devise the land to John petit for life and  afterward to George his son and to his heir for ever upon condition that he  take upon he the name of speak that the that of December she cause another  write to be make purport to be her will which be sign seal and publish by her  in the presence of three witness in the chamber where she then be and where  she continue while the witness subscribe their name in the ball but that she  can not see they so subscribe see Machil v temple show Broderick v Broderick I  Peer wms Longford v Eyre will carter v price dougl hand v James comens Rep  onion v tyrer Peer wms casson v wade I brown c c b modern they find that the  lessors of the plaintiff be heir at law and that they do enter c this matter  be argue in easter term follow the question be whether this write purport a  will be a revocation of the former or not and that depend upon the  construction of car c S the statute of fraud now the want of witness do not  make the last will void in itself but only quoad the land therein devise it  have its operation as to all other purpose it must therefore be a revocation  of the former and this be agreeable to the resolution of the judge in former  time for there be nothing in the statute of will Henry c which direct what  shall be a revocation the judge in Trevilians case dyer c do declare that it  may be by word of mouth or by the very intention of the testator to alter any  thing in the will for before the late statute very few word do amount to a  revocation if land be devise and afterward a feoff modern er p be make of the  same but for want of livery and seize it be defective yet this be a revocation  of the will though the feoff be void more roll Abr to d the counsel on the  other side argue that this will be not void by any clause in the statute of  fraud for if this be a revocation within that statute then this second write  purport a will must be a good will for if it be not a good will then it be not  a good revocation within that law No man will affirm that the Iatter write be  a good will therefore the first be a devise of land can be revoke but by a  will of land which the second be not this statute be intend to remedy the  mischief of parole revocation and therefore make such a solemnity requisite to  a revocation it can be deny but that this Iatter write be intend to be make a  will but it want that perfection which be require that law it shall not now be  intend a write distinct from a will so as to make a revocation within the  meaning of that Act modern if a man have a power of revocation either by will  or deed and be make his will in order to revoke a former this be a write  present but it be not a revocation as long as the person be live therefore a  revocation must not only be by a write but it must be such a write as declare  the intention of a man that it shall be so which be not do by this write upon  the first argument judgement be give for the defendant that the second will  must be a good will in all circumstance to revoke a former will