case Loveday against winter if a manor and other hereditament be settle with a  power to the tenant for life to make lease in possession or in reversion for  one two or three life or for thirty year or any other number of year  determinable on one two or three life so as such demise be out of the ancient  demesne land parcel of the premise or any other land use therewith for seven  year previous to the settlement so as the ancient rend be reserve a absolute  lease for thirty year of land then in lease for the term of two life to  commence after the say two life then in be be in this respect a good execution  of the power but a lease of copyhold land parcel of the manor be not warrant  by this power for all copyhold land be ancient demesne they be except as be  ancient demesne land parcel of the manor the rend and service however may be  demise within the power S c post S c salk S c comb S c Carth S c Mod S c holt  S c ld ray S c Freem S c comy trespass and ejectment the jury find a special  verdict the substance whereof be as follow George paulet be seize in fee of  the manor of m whereof the land in question be copyhold be parcel upon the  marriage of Edward his old son he settle the manor and land c upon trustee and  their heir to the use of himself for life and after his decease to the use of  his wife for life then to Edward paulet and the heir of his body lawful to be  beget remainder to his own right heir modern proviso that it shall be lawful  to and for the say George paulet and Elizabeth his wife by deed indent to make  lease in possession for one two or three life or for thirty year to commence  after one two or three life or for any other term determinable upon one two or  three life or in reversion for one two or three life or for thirty year or for  any other number of year determinable upon one two or three life so as such  demise be not make of the ancient demesne land parcel of the say manor or of  any other land use therewith for the space of seven year and so as the ancient  rend be reserve George paulet by deed indent recite that the land be copyhold  make a lease thereof to one Robert Blanchlow for thirty year the lessor of the  plaintiff claim as heir in tail to George paulet his father the question be  upon this proviso in the marriagesettlement whether this be a good lease or  not those who argue in the negative insist that it be not warrant by the power  either as to the land itself or as to the term first as to the tenure of the  land which be express find to be copyhold it can never be intend that he shall  make any new estate of copyhold land for the estate he be to make be to be by  deed indent and copyhold can be let by such deed so it be not within the power  and the acceptance of a lease of the same land by a copyholder be a  determination of his copyhold estate lane case     a the exception be of c all  ancient demesne land parcel of the manor which be sufficient word to exempt  these land out of the power of lease for a manor consist of demesne and  service and these be not only find to be copyhold but parcel of the demesne  second but if the land in question have be comprehend under the general word  yet the lease make by George paulet be void by reason of the term demise for  it be express against the power reserve which ought to be take strict against  the lessor modern and therefore where a manor be in lease and he who have the  modern er p reversion in fee levy a fine to the use of himself for life then  to his old son in tail but reserve a power for he to make lease for twentyone  year who make a lease before that in be expire to begin after the  determination thereof it be adjudge void Shecomb v Hawkins cro James S c Yelv  S c Brownl   a   b cro Elizabeth b for it ought to be a lease in possession  and not a interest to begin in going to be to which it be answer first that as  to the objection that the proviso do not give George paulet any power to make  lease of copyhold land because they be parcel of the demesne of the manor for  nothing but the capital house and the land therewith occupy be proper the  demesne of a manor but in the simple acceptation of the word no person have  any true demesne because all land depend on the crown that be the reason why  in plead it be usual say that such a person be seize in his demesne as of fee  see term de la lie demesne c a manor consist of demesne and service and  nothing else now if the demesne can be let then the power give by this proviso  signify nothing for service be not land and therefore nothing can be lease and  these power be not to be construe accord to strictness of law but as word use  by lawyer to signify their meaning for which reason these word so as the  demise be not make of the ancient demesne land of the manor must be take  accord to the common acceptation thereof that be to say a lease shall not be  make of any land usual occupy with the capital message second as to the term  demise which as have be object ought not to have be for thirty year absolute  but determinable upon one two or three life curian copyhold in strictness be  part of the demesne of the manor because the tenancy be at the will of the  lord the land be suppose to be always in his hand but in vulgar acceptation it  be otherwise now the land which be in lease for life be not parcel of the  manor during the continuance of the lease but the reversion thereof be parcel  Adjournatur in Michaelmas term will judgement be give for the plaintiff holt  chief justice Turton and Eyre justice hold that the term be within the power  but that the power do not warrant a lease of copyhold land hold of the manor  and Turton and Eyre think that the power be intend to operate on the other  land which be mention in the conveyance but holt chief justice think that the  rend and service may be demise within the power for that it appear to be the  intent of the settlement that part of the manor may be demise S c post S c  comy Rep S c ld ray S c Powell on power a