barrow against barrow and other prerogative court byday after Michaelmas term  December that No instance of probate have be grant of a copy of instruction by  the law of England a codicil be not destroy by the burn of the will to which  it original belong in such a case a codicil may become a substantive  instrument and be per see entitle to probate John barrow decease get one John  tailor a barber to make his will bear lee er p date the that November in which  he give his wife all except a few small legacy and appoint her sole executrix  decease live at Laleham in Middlesex lee and be head gardener to wood Esq of  Littleton in that neighbourhood decease always express the high affection to  his wife on the that September he be ill request his say master Mr wood to  come to he which he do and he then ask decease whether he have make his will  he say he have and have make his wife executrix and express great satisfaction  therein and say he have give her almost all and cut off his brother with a  shilling Mr wood say that look unkind to they and be unnecessary and ask he if  he have dispose of the residue decease say he do n t know what the residue  mean wood explain it and say he may give his wife the residue by a codicil if  he have omit it in his will decease desire wood to make a codicil to give the  residue to his wife which he do and decease sign it and wood attest it the  same day decease express great pleasure at Mr wood have make his will for he  and declare great affection to his wife and immediate send to tailor to desire  he will bring his will to he which be leave in tailor be hand decease soon  after burn say will say it be useless Mr wood have make his will for he  decease die on the that September soon after his widow apply to tailor who  make his say will to give her a copy of it which he do after some importunity  the widow then cite the next of kin for decease have no child to show cause  why probate shall not be grant to her with the copy of the will bear date the  that November together with the codicil date the that September annex or why  administration with the say codicil alone shall not be grant to her Joseph lee  barrow one of decease brother appear and oppose both say copy of the will and  the codicil and pray the court to pronounce the decease to be dead intestate  Trenley proctor for the widow propound say copy and the codicil the brother  plead that say copy be not a true one and that by the instruction from which  the destroy will be draw legacy be leave to decease brother in case the widow  marry again and the residue be give to they after her death and exhibit a copy  of the say instruction and at the hear pray that decease shall either be  pronounce to have die intestate or that the widow shall be oblige to take  probate of say copy of instruction together with the codicil N B the widow in  her answer to the brother allegation confess that she be now inform and  believe the copy propound by her be not a true copy of the will and confess  the article to be true in which Joseph plead that the destroy will be  agreeable to the copy of instruction plead and exhibit by he John tailor swear  to instruction for the destroy will due execution c and that the will be  agreeable in every respect to those instruction and that the copy of  instruction exhibit be agreeable to the original instruction and that the  propound copy of the will be not a true copy of it that he give that copy to  the widow but leave out that part relate to her marry again believe it will be  disagreable to her Mr wood prove the fact relate to the codicil and other  witness prove that decease declare great satisfaction in Mr wood have make his  will for he and his affection for his wife and that thereupon he lee send for  and burn the will of the that November the question be whether probate shall  be grant to the widow of the propound copy of the will together with the  codicil or administration with the codicil alone as the widow pray or whether  probate shall be grant to her of the copy of the instruction together with the  codicil or whether this will itself be destroy by the decease the codicil as a  part of it be not destroy with it and consequent the decease die intestate one  of which alternative the brother pray the court to pronounce for judgement sir  George lee but I be of opinion the propound copy can not be pronounce for  because it be confess and prove not to be a true copy nor have copy of  instruction ever be establish the original instruction have often nor can  these be pronounce for because they be not propound as to the codicil I be  clear that by the law of England it be not destroy by the burn of the will but  be a substantive instrument or testamentary schedule and as in this case the  testator intend to die testate consider it as his will and declare he intend  his wife shall have almost all agreeable to the codicil I pronounce for the  validity of it as a testamentary disposition and decree administration to the  lee er p widow with that schedule annex and swear her administratrix in court  but at the desire of the proctor for the brother order that the letter of  administration shall not pass under seal till after fourteen day the brother  pray cost but I give none on either side