case riddle versus Emerson eoden die Eq can ab pl c a lease for year to a but  by parole agree to be in trust for a and b joint a moiety of the rend if this  be within the statute of fraud c the bill be that the plaintiff and defendant  agree together to take a lease of a colliery of sir Gilbert Gerrard they  contract with sir Gilbert for it at a certain rend but by agreement the lease  be take in the plaintiff name only but the same be in trust that the defendant  shall be jointtenant with he and have a moiety of the profit and shall pay a  moiety of the rend and sir Gilbert Gerrard both at the seal of the lease and  before have refuse to let it to the defendant but upon condition that the  plaintiff shall be permit to receive a moiety of the profit and be answerable  for a moiety of the rend and sir Gilbert have since the make of the lease  demand and receive a moiety of the rend of the plaintiff to this bill the  defendant plead the Act of fraud and perjury and that this pretend trust be  not declare in write accord to the Act for the plaintiff it be insist that  this be a result trust and such a trust as the law will create and therefore  there needs no declaration of it in write for the rend in this case reserve be  the consideration of the lease and a moiety of that be accord to the say  agreement pay by the plaintiff that raise a trust to he for a moiety of the  profit and this be a plain result trust for a lessee render rend be in nature  of a purchaser and shall have the same favour in equity as be resolve in the  case of Woodroffe and cook and court incline to think shall avoid a voluntary  conveyance shaw and all v standish post vol Vernon chancery case er p Vernon  chancery case then it be insist that this be only a lease for three year on  which more than two full three of the best improve rend be reserve and be  therefore except out of the statute but it be answer that there be no colour  to make this a result trust indeed where I S buy land and pay the purchase  money if the conveyance be make to I d this will be a result trust vide  Gascoigne v Thwing post and case cite in note there but where a purchase by  the father in the name of his old son a infant this be advancement for the son  and not a result trust for the father mumma v mumma post vol and case cite in  note there and where mortgage in fee make for pound but half the money be b S  but yet for want of a declaration in write b be not admit to read the proof of  it so as to create a trust for he be against the statute of fraud Newton v sir  Isaac Preston pre Ch et quaere whether trust arise by implication and as such  except by the statute must not be such trust as arise upon the face of the  deed itself but in the present case to make a man a joint lessee with one that  be sole lessee by the lease in write because the landlord have since accept a  moiety of the rend of the other be ridiculous neither from this matter ex post  facto can a result trust be raise by construction for the plaintiff and that  by a act videlicet the payment of the rend to which the defendant be neither  consent nor privy and as to the other matter that this be a lease for three  year only on which two full three of the improve rend be reserve and so out of  the Act the answer be plain such a lease may be make by parole but when such a  lease be make in write the trust of that lease can be declare by parole but  the judge be doubtful though incline to overrule the plea the counsel consent  that the word plea shall be strike out and that it shall stand for a answer