atkins case GRYLE versus GRYLE April SC barn Charles Rep a will execute in the  presence of two witness afterward testatrix say this be ray will in the  presence of a three but do not put her seal nor say her name be of her  handwriting Lord Hardwicke incline this be a void will because not exact  conformable to the statute a will be execute first in the presence of two  witness afterward the testatrix say this be my will in the presenceof a three  and desire he will attest it but do not put her seal neither do she say that  her name be of her own handwriting atkins er p case cite in support of this  will be can versus can February before Lord Macclesfield Mod Chanc Cas  precedent in chancery cook versus parson lodge versus Jennings case in the  exchequer in Ireland Lord chancellor give no absolute opinion but be incline  to think that this be a void will and mention the case of lea and Libb the  testator make his will in write subscribe by two witness and devise all his  land to W b afterward he make a codicil in which the will be recite and this  also be attest by two witness one of which be a witness to the will but the  other be a new one the question be whether this new witness shall make a three  to the will the statute require that there shall be three and adjudge that he  shall not lea versus Libb Carthew because it be not exact conformable to the  ceremony require by c the statute of fraud and perjury unless it have be  reseal by the testatrix in the presence of the three witness and unless she  have declare it to be her handwriting seal without sign in the presence of  this witness he seem to think will have be sufficient to make it a good will  but say it be a point proper to be determine at law on suggestion of the  plaintiff counsel that act have be do which may amount to a confirmation of  the will the cause be order to stand over a special verdict be find upon a  ejectment the case be this the testator sign and execute his will in December  in the presence of two witness who attest the same in his presence afterward  in the year he with his pen go over his name in the presence of a three  witness who subscribe his name in his presence and at his request and the  question be whether this be a due execution of the will under the statute of  fraud and perjury car c sect Mr henly argue for the heir at law that the  statute require three witness to subscribe in the testator presence must  intend they shall be all present together else there be not that degree of  evidence the statute require for a attestation of three witness at different  time have only the weight of one witness witness to a will not only attest the  due execution of a will but likewise the capacity of a testator at the time of  the execution a man may be sane at the time two witness attest and insane when  the three attest it can be consider as a will till the three witness have sign  for that complete the act the will here be date in suppose land purchase after  the date and before the attestation by the three witness will the land pass  certain not he cite lea versus Libb Carth and shower and Justin Instit lib  title de will to order Mr bank e contra for the devisee he argue that a will  execute before three witness though at three different time be good within the  stat of fraud and perjury the statute not require they shall all be present at  the same time the requisite under the statute be that the testator shall sign  in the presence of three witness at least and that they shall attest in his  presence it will therefore be add new requisite which the act do not mention  and in effect be make a new law he cite cook v parson Prec in Chan and Ch Cas  anon Lord chief justice lee this case depend upon the word of the statute the  requisite in the statute be that the three witness shall attest his sign but  it do not direct the three witness shall be all present at the same time There  have be no determination as to this point in the case of cook v parson the  testator sign be hold good though it be not before three witness at the same  time and the court only doubt whether the testator bare own the subscription  to be his before one of the witness be good but there be no doubt as to the  validity of the will from the execution at different time here you have the  oath of three attest witness this be the degree of evidence require by the  statute and the same credit be give to three person at different time as at  the same time we can carry the requisite further than the statute direct the  act be silent as to this particular it will therefore be make a new requisite  the sign be the same act reiterate the testator in the principal case go over  his name again and declare it to be his last will judgement against the heir  at law Jones v lake Feb in the court of king bench SC Ves so Stonehouse v  Evelyn p W Grayson v Atkinson Ves see shire v Glascock salk atkins er p cross  v paulet stram see also Longford v Eyre p W dorm v thurland p W Carleton v  griffin burr right v price Douq casson v dade bro Charles Rep