case annesly against palmer if there be two will the first devise the real  estate to charitable use and the personal estate to particular legatee and the  second bequeathe the personalty to other legatee and the real estate to such  use as the testator shall declare and a probate be grant of the first will  such probate be conclusive against the claimant under the second will until  reverse by commission of review the case be thus the testator make one will in  the year and about four year afterward videlicet in the year he make another  will and modern report by the first he devise all his real estate to  charitable use and all his personal estate to particular legatee therein  mention and by his other and last will he devise his personal estate to other  person and all his real estate to such use as he shall afterward declare  concern the same but die before be make any declaration of such use afterward  upon a contest between the executor of both the will the first be prove in the  spiritual court and that probate be confirm upon a appeal to the delegate and  upon this contest one of the executor have allege that the testator sir  William Robinson die without heir it be prove that Sarah palmer the wife of  the now plaintiff be his heir at law whereupon she and her husband enter on  the great part of the real estate suppose that the first will by which that  estate be devise to a charity be revoke by make another will and the testator  die without make any other disposition thereof it must descend to the  plaintiff as his heir at law and now upon a bill exhibit against her and her  husband by those who claim under the first will it be insist for her that the  suit in the spiritual court be between the contend executor and that she  though she be heir at law be neither party or privy to that suit and therefore  she pray that a decree may be make in her behalf as to the real estate and  likewise that the first will may be set aside as to the personal estate for  though the probate of that will be confirm by the delegate yet it be now  evident that it be no will be revoke by a subsequent will it be admit on the  other side that the make a second will be a revocation of the first but that  be not the present case for upon a issue direct out of this court to try  whether the testator revoke his will which he make in the year the jury find  that he do not revoke it any otherwise than by make another will in the year a  see the case of Hitchins v Basset show comb Mod salk show p c and the case of  Rolfe v Harwood will S c on a writ of error black Rep Cowp S c on a appeal to  parliament brown p c see also Powel on devise atk vezey Swinb a which last  clause be omit by the clerk of the assize in draw up the verdict and on the  postea it be return general that he do not revoke modern report er p it which  be neither the act of the jury nor of the court application be make to the  court of king bench to certify that the verdict be draw up as the jury find it  which be that the testator do not revoke his first will alley otherwise than  by make another will and after two motion make in full court for that purpose  the chief justice be inclinable to certify modern report that it be so but he  be overrule by the other three judge who though they be satisfy in their  conscience that it be so yet will not introduce so dangerous a precedent b  that a verdict may be amend see roll Abr   cro Elizabeth cro car bunb stram  will dougl burr b therefore it be insist upon affidavit produce and read of  this matter to falsify that part of the record either by a new trial or by any  other mean the court shall direct but admit the second will shall amount to a  revocation of the first it shall be take in a court of equity to be only a  revocation pro tanto and that be of the personal estate the court as to the  personal estate here be a will prove and that probate confirm upon a appeal to  the delegate which shall conclude all person both in law and equity to make  any demand thereof contrary to the say will but now here be a subsequent will  find by verdict and that to the satisfaction of this court but the probate of  the first be still in force against those who claim under the second if they  desire it the court will grant a commission of review in order to set it aside  but if upon such a commission of review the probate of that will shall be  confirm by the delegate there will be a end of the cause for there can be a  review upon a review Qure for there may be a commission of reexamination to  examine the sentence of the delegate there be no decree make in the principal  case