case bushel against Burland a deed declare use date before and execute after a  fine levy be good if it appear that the fine be levy to the use therein  declare S c holt in ejectment on a special verdict the case in short be a and  b his wife levy a fine and four year after they make a deed to declare the use  in which there be these word all and every fine or fine levy or to be levy  shall be to the use of the deed this case be argue in easter term in the seven  year of queen whether by sergeant Pratt and sergeant Hooper and adjourn to  this term modern report Pratt sergeant argue that the fine be good for though  the deed be long after and these word all and every fine or fine levy or to be  levy shall be c yet the jury find that it relate to the fine before levy and  insist on Dowmans case a   dyer roll Abr a Hooper sergeant argue that Dowmans  case be before the statute of fraud modern report er p and perjury b car c see  sander on use b when declaration of use may be by parole and make several  difference between this and Dowmans case and if this be good where be the  freehold all the while between the levy of the fine and the execution of the  deed and beside by the word of the deed it be plain it relate to a subsequent  fine and he say that the verdict do not signify anything here for if the jury  find what be not law it do not avail as suppose they have find that the  declaration of use have be by parole holt chief justice and the court say that  the first fine will be to no use if this deed do not relate to it and Bekwiths  case a co a say it shall be good if the wife do not declare the contrary if a  fine be levy by husband and wife in vacation and they make a deed of use of a  fine levy in Trinity term as in judgement of law it be it be good though since  the statute of fraud and perjury and there be the same objection as to the  freehold be in abeyance and the time do not make any alteration or if a man  levy a fine and the deed be lose and four year after he make another deed the  fine be good the statute of fraud and perjury be out of the case for it be  thereby declare that all subsequent deed shall be as they be before say  adjournatur holt chief justice afterward deliver the opinion of the court the  question be this deed bear date before the fine levy and not execute till  after and the jury have find that the fine be levy to the use therein declare  whether it be sufficient to declare the use of the fine we be all of opinion  that it be we think that notwithstanding the statute of fraud and perjury a  subsequent deed be now as good as it be before the statute it be doubtful  whether that statute extend to use because they be not mention there but only  trust notwithstanding we take trust and use to be the same in respect of trust  in their large extent and so within the statute of use here be what the  statute require for here be a write and here be a deed if you consider Dowmans  case more you will find this to be much strong for the jury there find that  the deed of use be subsequent and the question be whether the deed be  sufficient to declare the use and in that case it be object that there be a  limitation of the use without any impeachment of waste which can be without  deed at the time of grant of the reversion there be no deed but when the deed  come and declare the intent of the party then it be a sufficient manifestation  of the use and the intent of the party and it be true waste can not be  dispunishable without deed but when the deed come and make good the use it be  well enough the jury here have express find that it be the intent of the party  at the time of levy the fine that it shall be to those use in Basset case dyer  pl there be a recovery suffer in the sixteenth year of Henry the eight and the  use be not declare till the twenty though it be before the statute yet it be  the same thing and that be hold a good declaration of the use judgement for  the plaintiff b nightingale v Ferrer Peer wms b