case NALDRED versus Gilham refer to hall v hall l r Ch Lord chancellor Parker  vide vern Clavering v Clavering Eq can ab pl a make a voluntary settlement on  her nephew keep the deed in her power 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 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 Katherine  Naldred seize in fee of land of about per annum have a nephew name George  Naldred the plaintiff and another nephew call Richard Gilham the defendant the  plaintiff Naldred be about three or four year old and Katherine the aunt by  indenture of covenant to stand seize date the that of February settle the  premise on herself for life remainder to her nephew Naldred in fee without any  power of revocation but though the aunt bespeak two part thereof yet she keep  both in her own possession afterward mrs Naldred be mind to settle the premise  on her nephew the defendant Gilham instead of her peer William nephew the  plaintiff Naldred and advice with some lawyer about it be tell she have put it  out of her power by have settle the premise absolute on the plaintiff  whereupon she express great concern say she have be impose upon she afterward  burn both these part of the settlement by which she have settle the premise on  the plaintiff Naldred and by lease and release date the d and that of October  make a new settlement of the premise to the use of herself for life remainder  to the use of her nephew the defendant Gilham and his heir and have deliver  this last settlement into the defendant Gilhams hand she soon afterward die  the plaintiff father have in the life of Katherine Naldred the aunt who for  several year lodge and board at his house when she be about leave he and he  under some apprehension that she will alter the settlement by stealth and  without the privity of the aunt get at the first settlement by which the  plaintiff claim and have procure a attest copy of it put up the two part where  they be before place by the aunt which she burn as aforesaid after the ant  death the plaintiff Naldred the infant by his father his next friend bring a  bill to establish this attest copy against the defendant Gilham insist that  both the settlement be voluntary and therefore accord to the rule in such case  the plaintiff be the first voluntary settlement vide ante young v cottle ought  to prevail and come on before the master of the roll his honour with great  clearness determine for the plaintiff and grant a perpetual injunction against  the defendant decree the deed to be deliver up and likewise condemning the  defendant in cost but upon a appeal to Lord chancellor Parker his lordship  peer William after time take to consider a and several adjournment of the  cause reverse the decree at the roll declare that it be plain the aunt intend  to keep this estate in her power that she design there shall be a power of  revocation in the settlement and that she think while she have the deed in her  custody she have also the estate at her command all which in this case appear  more evident from the settlement be make by her on so tender a infant who  future conduct it be impossible for her to foresee and that when she be tell  that by have make the settlement absolute she have disable herself from settle  the estate a second time she immediate express great surprise and complain she  have be impose upon that in fact she appear to have be impose upon by prepare  and make the conveyance absolute which it have be unreasonable in any one to  have ask of her that peer William er p take her to have be impose upon in the  make this settlement a absolute one when it ought to have be with a power of  revocation he do not see she do amiss in burn or destroy it as this be but do  herself right and if in her lifetime the now plaintiff have bring a bill  against her in order to have the first settlement set up there ought not to  have be any relief upon such a bill that it be manifest the aunt do no way  intend to be bind by this settlement because though there be two part of it  yet she will not deliver either of they to the plaintiff or his friend whereas  she part with the second settlement to her nephew the defendant Gilham which  show her intention to be bind thereby and that as nothing can be more evident  than that this attest copy be procure dandestinely indirect and without her  privity or consent no advantage ought to be make of a write gain in such a  manner that peer William this attest copy if any evidence of the first  settlement as it seem to the court to be when the person who make the original  have burn it and strong than the case where the party have the original and  will not produce it be intend to be make use of at law the plaintiff do wrong  in come here with a title which if any be a legal one at least a copy so  indirect gain ought not to be assist or countenance in equity and since the  defendant stand expose to be disturb at law in the title have be to no purpose  put to great charge in this court and since the mother who be prochein any in  the father room though she come late into the cause yet when once make  prochein any stand in the place of the father who be first so and liable to  pay all the cost as he be before and as it be say and not deny that she have  great asset from her husband the testator therefore in order to make the  defendant reparation for the needless trouble and expense he have be put to  here his lordship decree the bill to be dismiss with cost unless the plaintiff  mother and prochein any shall within three week deliver up the attest copy of  the first settlement and also give to the defendant the possession of the  estate within the same time afterward the defendant Gilham bring a bill  against Naldred the mother and Naldred the son to have this attest copy of the  first deed of settlement deliver tip and come on to be hear the that of  February Lord chancellor declare that the say first deed of settlement of the  that February ought not to prevail against the latter of for that though the  first settlement be seal and deliver yet it be not deliver out of her power  but the say Katherine Naldred keep both part thereof in her own custody that  she may destroy they if she think fit and George Naldred peer William the  father of the infant get a copy of such settlement fraudulent and by a trick  ought not thereby to establish it against the latter settlement and though  regular the first voluntary settlement ought to prevail against the latter yet  if the first be gain by fraud and the sole evidence of this settlement be so  it ought not to prevail against a second settlement though voluntary and  notwithstanding it be evident Katherine Naldred the aunt do once intend the  premise shall go to her nephew Naldred the infant yet it be never her design  to put it out of her power to alter or vacate the settlement she have make  wherefore it be decree that the copy of the first settlement which Joan  Naldred the mother confess by her answer to be in her custody shall be bring  before the master to remain in his hand till further order of the court and  that the defendant Joan the mother shall be examine upon oath as to any other  copy of the say deed and if there have be any other copy make thereof that be  also to be deliver up and the defendant Joan to account for the rend and  profit of the premise receive by her or her late husband since the death of  Katherine Naldred the aunt who make the settlement and the tenant of the  premise be to attorney to the plaintiff Gilham and this to be bind to the  defendant George Naldred the infant unless he shall show cause within six  month after he come of age but no cost on either side unless the defendant  shall put the plaintiff Gilham to further trouble and then the plaintiff  Gilham be to apply to the court for his cost vide ware v Lant pre Charles  Clavering v Clavering vern and bro p c S c cotton v king post Vol two Boughton  v Boughton atk colman v seraglio bro c c Ves jun fear v Ashwell Bolton v  Bolton swan Antrobus v smith Ves ellison v ellison Ves Pulvertoft v Pulvertoft  Ves Cecil v butcher I W peer William er p