bind v Seawell queen if the attestation of a will of land be valid when the  witness only see the last sheet of the will refer to Robert v Phillips  Elizabeth Bl distinguish in the good of Hammond sweet Tr SC burr issue to try  the validity of sir Thomas Chittys will on the trial this special case be make  sir Thomas city make his will that march all of his own handwriting upon two  sheet of paper write in folio page on all side and sign at the bottom of each  page the sentence and word be so connect from the bottom of each page to the  top of the next and particular from the four side of the first sheet to the  first side of the second sheet that they be imperfect and nonsensical if read  apart but clear and Intelligible when read together he also make a codicil in  like manner on a single sheet the testator then call in Francis Harding show  he both sheet of the will and his signature to every page tell he that be his  will and also show he the codicil and desire he to attest both which he do on  the last sheet of the will and on the codicil in the presence of the testator  and then leave the room Jobfi Vaughan and John Leyland come in immediate  afterward Blackstone the testator show they the codicil and the last sheet of  the will and seal they in their presence take each of they up and several  deliver they as his act and deed these witness then attest the same in the  testator presence but never see the first sheet of the will nor be it produce  to they nor be the same or any other paper on the table after the testator  death both sheet be find in his bureau not pin together but with the codicil  wrap up in one piece of paper Quand lre whether this be a will duly execute  accord to the statute to prevent fraud and perjury Morton for the plaintiff  argue in support of the will that in the last sheet there be no land devise  therefore to that alone no formal attestation be necessary so that the  testator must intend that the attestation shall relate to the first sheet that  no witness be expect to know the number of sheet or skin in a will the statute  give no direction for that purpose it be allow that the last sheet be well  Blackstone er p execute the question be what do that extend to all be of the  testator write the context run from one sheet to another therefore he mean to  publish his whole will and declare that his intention in the last sheet the  last sheet be clear valid shall the first be bad suppose the mansionhouse devi  d in the first sheet and the outhouse in the second will the court separate  they by this nicety of construction in all trial a witness be only show the  last sheet upon which his attestation be sign and by which only be know the  identity of the instrument lea and Libb Mod show comb Carth report tempt holt  report in Equ rely on by the other side be a will attest by two witness land a  codicil recite the will attest by two witness also one of who be also a  witness to the will hold not to be well execute but that be the case of one  complete instrument attest by a incompetent number and of a codicil Blackstone  subsequent many month in date we have three witness who all attest the whole  that sir Thomas city mean to publish as his will at the same time suppose a  will be make without any attestation and afterward by a codicil the testator  refer to it and confirm it and have three witness to the codicil this will be  good will e in Molineux and Molineux cro James the question be whether man  have make a good will in write under the statute of will he devise to his son  accord to the intent express in certain other write therein mention court hold  it to be good by way of reference by the same rule I now contend that the  first sheet of sir Thomas Chittys will be well attest be in like manner refer  to by the last which be allow to be indisputable good Yates for the defendant  observe that the question be not whether the will be genuine but whether duly  publish under the statute of fraud and in support of a general law make for  the security of devise it be proper to go even against the intentof any  particular testator this statute have be always strict interpret and the first  sheet be never see by two of the witness have the sheet lie one upon another  and be connect together I allowit will be a good attestation though the  witness may never see the under one the law imply that they do see they till  the contrary appear and if they see but the extreme edge of the paper it will  be sufficient but here there be a direct absolute negative the witness have  swear they do never see the first sheet in lea and Libb as report in Mod the  court put this very case in boundary and hold it no good attestation the  reason be because the testator may afterward substitute another sheet in the  room of that he have first write which if prove will clear vitiate the will  the case of Molineux and Molineux be only a question of description and  the Court very just hold that the nature of the estate may well be describe by  reference to another instrument Blackstone mort on in reply observe that a man  may as easy change a sheet in his will for a new one after he have show and  publish it as before unless the witness must subscribe ever that sheet which  be never yet contend and that as to the legal possibility of seeingtbe edge of  every sheet nothing binder a man from write his will on paper of various size  and if a little bit be insert in the middle of b will between several other  sheet no witness can prove its publication otherwise than be by inference and  connexion and that the connexion of grammar and context be altogether as  rational and as certain a criterion as the connexion of a wafer or packthread  which Mr Yates have admit will have make it a good publication of the first  sheet though it have lie out of sight and total cover by the second post e it  will not be a good will since the statute of fraud the original will refer to  by the codicil must have be proper execute for if it he have in its inception  no codicil though proper execute can give effect to it as where a testator  devise land by a will write in his own hand but which have no witness and then  by a codicil duly execute and subscribe by four witness recite and take notice  of it it be hold that the will be void Alt gentleman v barn vern Prec in Ch in  a lead case on the subject this doctrine have be lie down videlicet that every  codicil refer to a previous duly execute will unless confine in expression be  a republication of such will though the codicil relate only to personal  property barn v crow Ves jun confirm the case of Acherley v Vernon I Com r  Piggott v Waller Ves jun S p Lord Hardwicke seem to Blackstone er p have be of  the same opinion in Gibson v Lord Mont/ord I Ves S and see potter v potter d  do they pate v Davy I Cowp it be at one time think that a intention to  republish shall be manifest declare or express Att gentleman v Downing ambler  whether a subsequent write be consider as the conclusion of a will begin  before as in Carleton v griffin I burr or as a codicil republisbing a will it  must be attest by three witness such republication unless control will pass  afterpurchased land Piggott v Waller where sum pra lady Strathmore v bow TR  confirm in d p Bos p Goodtitle they Woodhouse v Meredith m S but it will not  operate upon a thing which have come by substitution into the place of  something exist at the time of publish the will but since withdraw Holmes v  Coghill Ves jun lane v Wilkins east