case walker versus walker December see wood v Midgley de g m g Maddison v  Alderson App Cas SC barn c SC cite Ves the question be whether parole evidence  may be admit on the part of the defendant as there be no write agreement  between he and the plaintiff to establish a fact the defendant may be admit to  read parole evidence to rebut the equity set up by the bill John walker the  old brother of the family be pretty near his end apply to Thomas walker the  plaintiff and to his sister who have solicit he to do something for they and  tell they if you will surrender your copyhold estate as you have no atkins er  p child of your marriage for the benefit of your brother Ralph walker the  defendant I will secure a annuity of pound per and for your life and a annuity  of pound S for your sister the plaintiff do agree to the term and promise to  surrender his copyhold estate upon which John walker surrender his copyhold  estate to the defendant charge with atkins these annuity the defendant refuse  to pay they unless the plaintiff will surrender his own copyhold estate  pursuant to his promise to John walker the question as there be no write  agreement of this transaction between John walker and the plaintiff if parole  evidence may be admit to establish this fact Mr Chute of counsel for the  defendant insist that a man who come into a court of equity ought to have  clean hand and to do equity by surrender his copyhold land pursuant to his  agreement with John walker and upon the general doctrine that parole evidence  may be admit to rebut a equity cite the follow case the countess versus the  earl of Gainsborough vern Eq can Abr Oldham versus Litchford vern Eq can Abr  Gascoigne versus Thwing and other vern malabar versus malabar before Lord  chancellor Talbot case in his time the defendant be heir at law both to John  walker and the plaintiff Lord chancellor there be a great many instance in  this court where parole evidence will be admit to be read to rebut a equity  set up by the plaintiff in the case of result trust Gainsborough v  Gainsborough vern Granville v Beaufort vern Wingfield v Alkinson vern  Littlebury v Buckley vern bachelor v Searle vern petit v smith p W heron v  Newton p W Mod Rutland v Rutland p W Brasbridge v Woodroffe ante Ulrick v  Litchfield post Robinson v gee Ves Blinkhorn v Feast Ves lake v lake Amb will  S c and then it will come to this if a plaintiff have fail at law as the  present have do and come into this court for equity whether the defendant  shall not be admit to read this parole evidence to rebut the equity the  plaintiff set up by this bill I be very clear of opinion that such evidence  ought to be admit here and will be a great injustice to the defendant if it be  not it be not right state when it be say the evidence to be read here be in  support of a agreement but may more proper be say to be a defence arise from  the fraud and imposition of the plaintiff and have nothing in the world to do  with the statute of fraud and perjury here be a surrender in pursuance of a  agreement with a annuity charge upon the defendant the surrendee for the  plaintiff benefit and be refuse to perform his part be not this such a case as  the court will relieve suppose a person who advance money shall after be have  execute the absolute conveyance refuse to execute the defeasance will not this  court relieve against such con fraud Maxwell v Montacute Prec Charles young v  peachy post join v Statham post vol the agreement as set forth in the  defendant answer be prove by three witness in the full manner and their be  relation be no objection to their competency four pound per atkins Ann be the  value of the copyhold estate which the plaintiff accord to his agreement with  John walker be to surrender the inheritance of subject to his own and his wife  life the question be whether the plaintiff be entitle to have the aid of a  court of equity to recover the annuity which he have fail in at law I be of  opinion that the plaintiff be not entitle to have the aid of a court of equity  and that it will be contrary to the rule of justice for it appear to I plain  that John walker intend to grant these annuity or rentcharge conditional only  it be hold to be a defective charge at law and therefore the plaintiff come  into this court suggest it to be a equitable charge the defendant insist that  he ought not to have the aid of a court of equity to supply this defect unless  he will do equity in perform his part of the agreement by which he draw in  John walker to surrender S copyhold estate charge with the annuity the  material part of the defendant evidence be that in three day after John walker  surrender the plaintiff declare I have John walker fast but he shall not have  I fast neither the fact be charge by the defendant witness nor the credit of  the witness impeach by the plaintiff evidence the steward of the court examine  for the plaintiff and concern in the transaction swear that at or before the  time of the surrender he never hear of the agreement insist on by the  defendant be a manifest evasion and a negative pregnant that he hear of it  after the surrender atkins er p the plaintiff for these reason be not entitle  to relief in this court for supply the defeat of a legal conveyance but it be  rebut by the equity set up by the defendant I be not at all clear whether if  the defendant have bring his cross bill to have this agreement establish tile  court will not have do it upon consider this in the light of those case where  one part of the agreement be perform by one side it be but common justice it  be carry into execution on the other and the defendant will have have the  benefit of it as a agreement see Lacon v Mertins post vol note the allow any  other construction upon the statute of fraud and perjury will be to make it a  guard and protection to fraud instead of a security against it as be the  design and intention of it decree No cost on either side Reg lib b fol bill  dismiss