case man versus ware December in a case of fraud the evidence of a person who  join in grant away her estate be admit though it invalidate her right to the  estate mrs Haughton have convey away all her right and title in a estate to  the defendant by a deed execute for that purpose but there be not the common  covenant on the part of a vendor but only that she have do no act to encumber  the plaintiff notwithstanding this conveyance offer to read mrs Haughtons  deposition to impeach her right to this estate and to show that it be a  pretend title only and do with no other view than to assist the defendant in  carry on a fraud atkins er p it be object by the defendant counsel that the  evidence of a person who have join in grant and convey her estate can be admit  to invalidate her right to the estate which she have so grant and convey  especial as there be a pecuniary consideration express in the deed and the  receipt of the money endorse upon it Lord chancellor to be sure by the strict  rule of law such evidence will not be admit for where a person have grant and  convey be the right real or pretend the very word grant and convey imply a  warranty tide har   Litt a note Vaugh Nokes case   b Perk S clarke v Samson  Ves and a covenant for quiet enjoyment on the part of the grantor and  therefore can be examine as a witness to overturn and invalidate he right and  title grant by the deed atkins it be very well know at law that they be so  strict that no person who be make a defendant can possible be examine as a  witness but it be every day experience in this court that if a plaintiff make  a person defendant for formsake it be a motion of course to examine such  defendant in the cause save just exception in the case of a trustee who have  the legal interest in the estate but be mere nominal in every other respect  you can examine he at law as to the merit or intention of such deed but there  be no manner of doubt he may be a witness in equity see cross v pike Cox p W  Maybank v Metcalf post vol Fotherby v pate post vol Downing v townsend Amb in  crown prosecution no defendant can be examine in behalf even of the king but  the attorney general at the bar enter a Nola attendance against that  particular defendant before he can be admit as a witness this be do in a case  by Trevor when attorney general who be afterward Lord chief justice of the  plea I will not have it understand as if I lie it clown that rule of evidence  at law and in equity differ in general but only in particular case where fraud  be charge by a bill or in case of trust this court do not confine itself  within such strict rule as they do at law but for the sake of justice and  equity will enter into the merit of the case in order to come at fraud or to  know the true and real intention of a trust or use declare under deed it will  therefore very much abridge the power and jurisdiction of this court which be  chief conversant in case of fraud and trust if I do not admit such evidence  his lordship therefore overrule the objection