case Matthew versus Hanbury ux and all overrule Ayerst v Jenkins l r Eq in  court die novemb Eq can ab pi S c bill by executor to avoid bind give by  testator on suggestion that they be gain by threat and undue mean defendant by  answer say they we re enter into for money lend and debt due it appear by  proof defendant be a common harlot and plaintiff father have unlawful  conversation with her cur though this not set forth in the bill yet the  defendant answer save the bind be give for money lend this sufficient put it  in issue though not lie in the bill where the party himself that be culpable  come for relief against the say bind court may refuse otherwise where his  executor come post can the plaintiff as executor to Eusebius Matthew his  father bring a bill to be relieve against several bind obtain from the  testator by one Frances more while sole now the wife of the defendant Hanbury  some of they be take in her own name and other in the name of other the  defendant her trustee the bill charge that those bind be extort from he by  threat and menace and by undue mean and be not for any real debt or other good  consideration Vernon chancery case but upon the proof it appear that the  defendant Frances be a common harlot and that the plaintiff father a old weak  man have a unlawful conversation with her be prevail upon to enter into the  bind in question it be object by the defendant counsel that the plaintiff can  not be relieve upon this bill have charge only that the bind be obtain by  force and other undue mean and charge not any thing in particular of any  turpis shrinking and so have not make a proper case upon his bill which be the  reason of the dismission in the case of peeto and Wanklin per cur though where  the party himself who be the person culpable come to be relieve the court may  just refuse to interpose yet where the plaintiff be a executor only as in the  principal case that vary the matter and in this case the defendant by answer  have swear the bind be enter into for money lend or other debt owe to her that  sufficient put the matter in issue and give the plaintiff a opportunity to  prove that the bind be enter into upon the account of a unlawful conversation  between the testator and defendant and not for money lend or real debt and  whereas the trustee have declare a special trust for a particular purpose as  to one of the debt per cur that will not avail there be no proof that the  testator be privy there into or direct such trust and therefore decree a  account of what shall appear to be just due for money lend and other real debt  and on payment the bind to be deliver up vide Whaley v Norton ante Vol hill v  Spencer Amb