a make a voluntary settlement on her nephew keep the deed in her power in  which settlement there be no power of revocation afterward one secret and by  fraud on behalf of the nephew get a attest Copy of this settlement and then  the party who make the settlement burn it and settle the premise on another  nephew the first nephew be bill to establish the Copy of the first settlement  be dismiss with cost upon which the second nephew claim under his settlement  bring a bill to have the attest Copy deliver up and have a decree for it  because such Copy have be indirect gain Parker c mich Naldred and Gilham  ibidem I S by a deed have settle a term in such a manner as that after his and  b his wife be the defendant death without issue the same be to come to the  plaintiff for the residue of the term I S die sans issue and b have burn the  deed and by her answer but faint deny it videlicet that she do not remember  she ever burn or destroy the deed two witness swear the limitation of the  settlement to be in trust for I S for life remainder to b his wife for life  but their evidence differ as to the word of the remainder for one swear that  the remainder be to the heir of their equity case abridge er p body and the  other witness that the remainder be to the issue of their body and for want of  issue by I S and say b remainder to the plaintiff and per Jekyll master of the  roll where a term be limit to a man and his wife for their life remainder to  the heir of their body and for want of such issue remainder over this  remainder over be but of a term be void but his honour say that a limitation  of a term to trustee in trust for I S and b his wife for their life and  afterward for their child or for their issue and for want of such child or  issue live at the death of I S and b then to go over to the plaintiff be a  good limitation and that since a term may be limit in such manner his honour  say he will intend it to have be so limit in the present case for every thing  shall be presume in odium spoliatoris vide vern but his honour say there can  be no decree for the possession nor any present conveyance to the plaintiff it  be only the remainder of a term after b s the defendant death but order b to  assign over the term to trustee in trust for herself for life and afterward  for the plaintiff and to bring the deed relate to the Title into court and to  pay cost mich Dalston and coatsworth ibidem his honour consider in what manner  the decree shall be pronounce in the present case cite hob more Trin James the  king and Lord Hunsdon for countess dowager of Arundel where the king and his  farmer under he claim Title by the attainder of Francis Dacres who be attaint  of high treason and be suppose to be tenant in tail by virtue of a deed not  extant but vehement suspect to be suppress by some under who the defendant  claim and therefore it be decree by Lord Chan Ellesmere with the assistance of  the two Ch justice I e Lord coke and Hobart and also the master of the roll  will Rep that the king and his farmer under he shall hold the land until the  defendant produce the deed and the court make far order thereon his honour say  that upon search he find this case under the name of Hobart attorneygeneral v  l ibidem will Rep mich SC cite in grammatical case Cowper and Cowper per  Jekyll master of the roll from the register book Trin James lib b fol b who  say the decree be draw up thus that the king his heir and the Lord Hunsdon his  farmer shall hold and enjoy the land until the defendant shall procure the  deed therein particular mention and prove once to have be extant and duly  execute and his honour observe that here we see that the existence of the deed  be fundamental to the decree and the proof of they full and express assert by  the court in frame the decree and ibidem his honour say that he do not  remember or believe that any one case have be cite where there be not some  proof make of the existence of the deed or write suppose to be suppress or  destroy vide Chan can l vern Vol Eq can Abr p