carter against KUNGSTEAD in c b ROTULO in a trespass the jury give this  special verdict John berry be seize of the manor of Stapeley in hatred and of  other land in hatred and the h suffer a common recovery of all his land in  hatred Stapeley and Winkfield to the use of himself and his wife for life the  remainder to the heir male of his body quod beyond to stand of the manor of  Stapeley with the appurtenance to the use of himself for life the remainder to  the heir male of his body whereby they be seize prout law postulate the  husband die the wife make a lease for year and whether the manor of Stapeley  be convey or not be the question Harris she shall have all for when the whole  estate be limit at the beginning of a deed it shall not be abridge afterward  periam the estate be by way of use which shall be expound accord to the intent  and will of the limiter and if this have be do by will it be clear the woman  shall not have the manor of Stapeley Owen er p Anderson if I devise my land to  I S and after ware by the same will I devise it to I d now I S shall have  nothing because it be my last will that I d shall have it but otherwise it be  of a use for if I do limit a estate to the use of I S and in the last clause  do limit the same estate to I d the limitation to I d be void for the  repugnancy Owen periam as to the case of the will I conceive it be void to  both because it can be know who shall have it Anderson I be sure the law have  be take as I have say and there be a case in the Upper bench where a man one  day make part of his will and another day make another part which be repugnant  to the first part and adjudge that the last be good and the first void periam  I agree to this case for here be a difference in time Anderson so be there in  my case for when I be write my will I be think how I shall dispose of my  estate and it shall be intend that I have best advice concern that which I  have do last Walmseley a use be not to be compare to a will for the statute of  h have make it a estate and then by the of Edward if a man limit a estate at  the beginning of a deed he can after abridge it periam I put this case if a  man covenant upon consideration to be seize to the use of himself for life and  after to the use of his son but he further say that his meaning be his wife  shall have it for her life this be not a void clause but good to the wife and  the case be adjourn till next term and Harris argue again and say that a use  be but matter of trust and for that it be apparent that the intention be that  the wife shall have nothing there be no reason that another construction shall  be make Walmseley the limitation of the use be but a declaration how the use  shall be and do not give any thing and the opinion of the court be against the  plaintiff who be lessee of the woman and that the last clause do countermand  the first as to the manor of Stapeley Michael Elizabeth