bartlett v Pickersgill see r v Boston east n comment on hear v Pilley lr Ch  discuss and uphold as bind where the fact be identical James v smith Ch affirm  on appeal W n overrule Rochefoucauld v Boustead Ch where land be pay for with  the money of a parole evidence to show that the purchase be make on behalf of  b refuse a defendant have be convict on the evidence of plaintiff among other  witness of perjury in deny a parole agreement in his answer leave for  plaintiff to file a supplemental bill in the nature of a bill of review state  this conviction refuse June that d Nov S c Cox cit east n this be a bill bring  by the plaintiff to compel a conveyance of a estate which be allege to have be  buy by the defendant upon a verbal agreement between Eden er p they for the  plaintiff there be no write agreement between they nor have any part of the  money be pay by the plaintiff the defendant article for the estate in his own  name and refuse to convey he deny by his answer have make any such verbal  agreement as be state in the bill Eden the attorneygeneral for the plaintiff  order to give parole evidence of the agreement and contend that though the  agreement be by parole yet that the trust will result by operation of law and  be therefore not within the statute of fraud the Lord keeper without hear the  counsel for the defendant the question be whether this evidence be admissible  or not which depend upon the statute of fraud one great end of that statute be  to prevent person come into this court pretend that they be entitle to trust  of long term and sometime of the freehold which give room to fraud and perjury  I think the allow this evidence will be to overturn the statute the statute  say that there shall be no trust of land unless by memorandum in write except  such trust as arise by operation of law where money be actual pay there the  trust arise from the payment of the money and not from any agreement of the  party but this be not like the case of money pay by one man and the conveyance  take in the name of another in that case the bill charge that the estate be  buy with the plaintiff money if the defendant say he borrow it of the  plaintiff then the proof will be whether the money be lend or not if it be not  lend the plaintiff buy the land but as here the trust depend on the agreement  if I establish the one by parole I establish the other also be I to allow this  evidence I do not know a case where the statute will have effect the judge  have take several case out of the statute as agreement in part execute if the  plaintiff have pay any part of the purchase money it will have be a reason for  I to admit the evidence or if there have be any fraud use by the defendant to  prevent a execution Eden of the agreement but as it be I think that it be a  case within the statute and that the bill must be dismiss with cost the  defendant be afterward indict at York for perjury in have deny the trust by  his answer and be convict on the evidence of the plaintiff circumstance  confirm that testimony and upon proof by other witness of declaration of the  defendant the plaintiff now petition for leave to file a supplemental bill in  the nature of a bill of review state this conviction the attorneygeneral Mr  Perrot and Mr Wilbraham in support of the petition the solicitorgeneral contra  the Lord keeper think the record of the conviction be not evidence and dismiss  the petition it be former suppose that the party aggrieve by perjury may use  the record of the conviction for the purpose of obtain relief in equity and  therefore it be think a indispensable requisite before he can be admit as a  witness on a indictment for perjury to show that the judgement in the suit in  which the perjury have be commit be satisfy r v Eden Esp n p c r v Dalby peak  n p c but upon the authority of the present case which have be repeat cite and  rely upon it be now hold that there can be no objection to his admissibility  though the judgement have not be satisfy Abraham v Bunn burr r v Boston east  burdon v Browning taunt Phil on eved smith v Rummens Campb Hathaway v barrow  ib attorneygeneral v Woodhead price Reg lib a fol lib Min mic