case baker versus Pritchard alias hosier August the defendant demurrer to the  discovery seek with relation to the perjury in a suit at law charge to be  commit by her procurement and likewise to the discovery seek concern the  proceed before the delegate Lord Hardwicke hold that the sentence in the  delegate can be read as this be a demand for real estate and they proceed  there by different law and in matter too relative to the personal estate only  and allow the demurrer as to this part the defendant in this cause have  demurrer to the discovery which be seek by the bill with relation to the  perjury in a suit of law charge to be commit by her procurement and likewise  to the discovery seek touch the proceed before the delegate she have also  plead the common plea of fine and nonclaim in bar to the title set up by the  plaintiff the cause of demurrer be two saint that what be pray with regard to  the perjury will subject her to punishment dly that the proceed in the court  of atkins er p delegate relate only to personal estate and therefore she be  not oblige to set it forth as this be a demand for real estate Mr Noel upon  the point of the fine and nonclaim cite for the plaintiff Allen versus sayer  vern Mr Murray on the same side lie it down that the distinction here with  regard to read sentence in the ecclesiastical court atkins be this that if the  precise point be determine there it may be read here but if it be only a  collateral thing and not the direct point in the cause which come before the  ecclesiastical court it can be read here he allow the defendant be not oblige  to set forth that she suborn the witness at the trial at law but she may  answer whether the verdict be not principal obtain upon the evidence of this  person who be perjure that the demurrer therefore cover too much and if  defective in part it be bad for the whole for a demurrer can be split as to  the fine and nonclaim he insist there be no nonclaim in the present case for  the fine be in the bill file soon after and the plea and answer do not come in  till so that here be a proceed all the time another ground be say for not  allow this fine be that it be fraudulent because the defendant have change the  possession by collusion with the tenant of the estate who enter into a  agreement to deliver the possession provide they may pay their rend into a  three person hand until the event of the suit here be over Mr brown insist for  the defendant that nothing be do from the year till so that here be a quiet  possession of six year at least Lord chancellor though a fine have be levy yet  if it be under circumstance of fraud the court ought to prevent the steal away  a estate in this manner ante first as to the demurrer I think it proper  because it be plain all the matter refer to by the bill be relative to proceed  in the ecclesiastical court as the demand in this court be for real estate I  think it will be of dangerous consequence to admit the sentence of the court  of delegate to be read here who proceed by different law and in matter  relative only to the personal estate note it seem a discovery must lead to  something material to a suit at law or in equity debigge v how cite bro  Charles Rep finch v finch Ves vide Dyneley v Dyneley post if indeed in the  lifetime of admiral hosier there have be a proper suit institute in the  ecclesiastical court relate to atkins the marriage and sentence have be give  against it that will have bind every body because it be final and conclusive  as be the proper jurisdiction and so in case of the like nature note this must  be understand in civil case for as to criminal it have since be determine in  the house of lord that such sentence be no bar to a prosecution for bigamy see  saint Tr vol XI duchess of kingston trial but here it be a mere collateral  point which come before the ecclesiastical court for it be a question relate  to the administration and the marriage be incidential only it be to be wish  indeed that the proceed in all case be uniform but as the ecclesiastical court  be the law oh the land it do sometime happen that they determine contrary upon  the same fact as in the case of Montague and Maxwell note a person who prove a  will in the spiritual court by which he swear the testator be of sound memory  afterward controvert the same will at law as to the real estate upon which a  issue be direct compos or non compos and find non compos April before Lord  Cowper vide vin Abr title executor p sect the demurrer as to this part  therefore must be allow as to the other part I do admit the defendant may  demurrer as to so much of the bill as ask whether she procure the subornation  of perjury but then the question will be whether the defendant may not have  divide it and answer as to the evidence of fillip influence the verdict and  which be procure by her it be true observe that a demurrer can be good for  part and bad for part see earl of Suffolk v green ante vol and I think the  question as to the influence of fillip evidence be a part of the other  question and that it be not distinct but mutual relate one to the other and  therefore the demurrer be proper I be as full of opinion the plea ought to be  overrule as to the objection of refer to the former proceed though it may seem  odd atkins er p it be not at all necessary to relate how the fine be levy only  that the person be seize and that he levy a line story v Lord Windsor post a  objection have be make that this be not a trust estate from admiral hosier but  a legal one from he to baker his heir at law who devise it in trust for the  benefit of his child atkins now I will not lie it down general that in the  case of a trust estate a fine and nonclaim shall not prevail for suppose a  fine be levy by a person in possession not affect by the trust there can be no  doubt but the remainder will be bar by the fine and a will be of dangerous  consequence to property if it be otherwise the plaintiff be a infant at the  time of the fine levy I will lie the trust out of the case and suppose it a  legal estate the infant may have a bill against the person in possession for a  account of the rend and profit for the person in possession be look upon only  as a guardian for the infant Newburgh v Bickerstaffe vern fauk land v bertie  vern Allen v sayer vern the bill prefer by the infant when he come of age be  not at all more improper than a entry at law or real action bring to avoid the  fine for otherwise it will trip up the jurisdiction of this court if you will  not allow where it be a proper matter of equity a bill to prevent the run of a  fine pink v Thorneycroft bro Charles Rep but if this be not quite so strong  the other objection be and if I be to suffer the fine to be a bar it be allow  the defendant to steal away the estate it be necessary to support this plea to  have set forth a full and sufficient answer for while a plea be depend no  exception can be take to a answer but the plea must first be remove out of the  way and that be the very reason the plaintiff lie by till the plea be  determine and account for the run of so much time it be very probable that the  application to the tenant be mere with a view to the scheme of the fine but  the possession give by they to the defendant be not absolute but under term  amount to a trust for it be conditional provide they may pay their rend into a  three person hand till the suit be determine will a court of equity suffer a  fine levy by a person who have get such a possession to stand I be sure if I  shall a fine which be say to be a solemn act and a end to all controversy will  cease to be so and will be introductory of numerous fraud even at law fine  will be set aside for fraud as in the case of a tenant for year Fermors case    a Ves Whaley v Tancred vent see Brereton v gamul ante and this be a much  strong case and therefore the plea must be overrule Reg lib a fol