“[Wjhere the contents of the parts excised from the will may be shown by competent evidence ..., the will should be probated, including the missing clauses as still a part of the will and unrevoked. Lovell v. Quitman, 88 N.Y. 377_ In case such evidence is not forthcoming, then we think that part of the will which remains should be probated.” In re Kent’s Will, 169 A.D. 388, 391, 155 N.Y.S. 894, 897 (1915). Accord Ross’ Will, 107 N.Y.S.2d 185. This view best reconciles the overall intent of the testator with the intent of the Legislature. The Heads did not intend to revoke their entire will. For a physical act to effect a revocation of the entire will, the intent to revoke must strike at the “existence of the whole instrument,” not just a part thereof. Board of Trustees of th 1944) (<HOLDING>). The Heads did, however, intend to revoke a
holding that sufficient revocatory intent was present where the words annulled and void were written in testators handwriting with intent of revoking the entire will being shown at time of writing such words holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding legislatures intent is determined from plain and common meaning of words used holding that a jury could find an intent to discriminate from evidence of use of code words such as all of you and one of them the words themselves are only relevant for what they reveal  the intent of the speaker