case stone versus crying Euhan at the roll before Mr justice wright December a  testator give the residue of his estate to his executrix or to her heir  executor administrator or assign she die in his lifetime Mr justice wright  hold it be give her as executrix and she die before he he be dead intestate as  to the residue asgil Evans by his will devise to his nephew Rollinson Evans  all his dividend on his Southsea annuity and afterward by a codicil give his  niece Margaret stone pound a year for her life to be pay out of his Southsea  annuity hold not to be a revocation in toto but that both devise may stand  consistent together the will of asgil Evans imprimis I give unto my nephew  Rollinson Evans all the income or dividend on my Southsea annuity now stand in  my name in the book of that office with remainder to his sister Eleanor child  the rest and residue of my estate real and personal and all my effect  whatsoever and wheresoever I give and bequeathe unto my executrix or to her  heir executor atkins er p administrator or assign and I do hereby appoint my  sister Eleanor Evans my sole executrix the codicil also I give unto my niece  Margaret stone after the decease of my sister Eleanor Evans pound a year to be  pay out of m that Southsea annuity now stand in my name in the Southsea book  during her natural life and no long and after her decease I give the abovesaid  pound a year unto my sister Eleanor Evans child share and share alike the  executrix die in the lifetime of the testator Rollinson Evans be dead the  husband of Margaret stone have one shilling give he under the will the  defendant be administrator to the executrix and claim in that right the saint  question be whether Mr asgil Evans be dead intestate as to the residue the d  question be whether charge ayear annuity upon the old Southsea annuity during  the life of Margaret atkins stone by the codicil be a revocation of the devise  in toto to his nephew Rollinson Evans under the will Mr justice wright if it  have be give as residue to her as executrix only and she have die in the  lifetime of the testator there be no doubt but it will have be a lapse legacy  but then upon the subsequent word the question will be whether they be a  limitation only or descriptive of some other person to be sure from the case  cite and several other case to that purpose there be no doubt but the word or  be construe as a copulative as well as a disjunctive where it be to support  the intention of a person but the design of the testator in this case plain  appear from the last word that he give her the residue as executrix and all  the subsequent word may be reject as surplus Maybank v brook bro Charles Rep  Hutcheson v Hammond bro Charles Rep and she be dead in the testator lifetime  he certain be dead intestate as to the residue and it must go among the next  of kin as to the second point whether the devise of the pound per annum be a  total revocation of the devise to Rollinson Evans it be not inconsistent like  the case of real estate for there a term for year give to the same person to  commence at the testator decease be not consistent with the fee devise to he  before see villiers v villiers ante but here such construction must be make as  that both legacy may take place the manner of dispose of a real and personal  estate under a will and under a codicil be very different forif a man leaves  twenty several paper behind he execute at different time in respect to  personal estate they shall all be take as one will and the court will  endeavour to reconcile they together so that they may all answer as near as  possible the intention of the testator Reg lib b fol