case sir jacob downing baronet against townsend and other in chancery that and  that July evidence interest witness see this case full in the appendix l sir  George Downing beside a will and codicil leave at his death the follow paper  write January that this be to satisfy my executor and all other person that  what mrs townsend my housekeeper have that be I I give it her for the use of  her daughter beside what I havegiven her by the codicil to my will g downing  Witnessea by three witness after the death of sir George mrs townsend tell the  plaintiff who be executor and heir at law to sir George that she have pound in  her hand beside note the daughter claim pound beside the pound which she say  be secure by sir George and intend for her by that paper bill by plaintiff for  a account of personal estate except pound and on hear the cause the deposition  of mrs townsend be offer to be read as evidence to prove the ambler quantum of  the money and note in her hand and object to by plaintiff Lord Hardwicke  chancellor great deal depend on the question whether mrs townsend shall be  admit as evidence or not it be of great consequence not only in this cause but  in itself it be a objection to her competency from all the circumstance of the  case and which attend her person and behaviour she be such a witness as will  be admit in a court of taw or equity with much caution and great reluctance so  where bankrupt be evidence in some case it be admit as Lord Hobart say with  some remorse of judgement but of opinion the objection in the present case go  only to the credit objection she be interest in part of the thing in question  and also in the event of the suit there be two way to prevent witness be  receive as evidence saint by prove they interest d by examine they on a voir  dire in this case plaintiff may have examine mrs townsend on a voir dire  indeed if you examine on a voir dire you can afterward prove the party  interest it be argue she be interest be it by the declaration of sir George  and by her own declaration d by the gift of the daughter to her of part of the  thing in demand d in the direct event of this suit not consequential because  she may be decree to account and pay cost the objection to her misbehaviour  can go to her competency unless it prove her interest to saint she be not  interest No argument on either side what the paper S it be say not to be  testamentary nor donation causan death it must then be a transaction inter  live and yet insist by Bagnal and his wife who be ambler mrs townsend daughter  that it shall take in such money as be in the mother hand after the date of it  and before the death of sir George Downing ambler er p the mother by that  paper be but a trustee and it be not to be dispute that a mere trustee may be  examine as to the quantum in his hand say sir George declare at the time it be  a provision for mrs townsend and her daughter till the annuity he have give  they become Payable but of opinion no evidence of declaration by sir George or  by mrs townsend can extend that paper write further than it import objection  of her partiality to her daughter go only to her credit if person will make  such secret trust unless the trustee be admit to ascertain the quantum the  beneficiary and trust will be deprive of the benefit of such gift this bring  it to the case of necessity there be no general rule of law as to evidence  without exception but this that the court be to receive the best evidence  which the case will admit d objection if not interest original yet she be so  by the daughter gift which be prove in this manner by the offer of the  daughter on her marriage she say I will take but pound and desire you will  appeal the rest to your own use there be two answer to that objection be it  the offer of the daughter will not bind Bagnal her husband d and which be to  be rely on it be not such a gift of which the mother can take any benefit it  be only mention as a declaration by the daughter no answer appear to have be  give to it by the mother or anything that import all acceptance she have since  deliver all the money and note to her daughter if mrs Bagnal have be sole at  that time yet it will not take off the testimony of mrs townsend mrs townsend  have not the note now if she be to bring a bill for they she can not have a  decree it be naked bargain d sharing in sin a defendant act so as to render  her liable to cost have be sometime a objection to ambler the evidence of such  defendant those be case to set aside deed for fraud and the defendant propose  to be examine have be party to the fraud and then the court have refuse the  testimony even where the interest be vest in a infant who can not be concern  in the fraud as in top v Stanhope but where the misbehaviour be subsequent to  the original transaction there be no objection from thence to the competency I  be of opinion that mrs townsend ought to be receive as evidence as to this  declaration of trust she be competent for her daughter but not for what  concern herself this case differ from all the case cite in Gibson v garland  the person to be examine be party to the original transaction so in arnot v  Biscoe Stevens be party to the original fraud in the king v bray necessity  govern and so far that case be applicable but there no consequence can arise  to the party in the same suit as here the court direct application to be make  to the ecclesiastical court whether the paper write be testamentary or not and  the cause to stand over