case villiers versus villiers November SC barn Charles Rep a counterpart may  be read if a original deed be lose and if no counterpart a copy and if no copy  parole evidence of the manner of its be lose if destroy by fire or lose by any  unforeseen accident they be of themselves sufficient excuse the rule of  evidence say Lord chancellor be that the best evidence the circumstance of the  case will allow must be give lewellin v Mackworth ante see Henley v Philips  ante atkins if a original deed be lose the counterpart may be read and if  there be no counterpart forthcoming then a copy may be admit and even if there  shall be no copy there may be parole evidence of the deed and the manner of  its be lose unless it happen to be destroy by fire or lose by robbery or any  unforeseen or unavoidable accident which be sufficient excuse of themselves  but then the copy must not be inconsistent and variant from the title which be  set up by the party who claim under the original deed as it be in this case  for the limitation here under the copy be different from what they be set out  to be in the plead if land be give to a man without the word heir and a trust  be declare of that estate and it can be satisfy by no other way but by the  beneficiary and trust take a inheritance it have be construe that a fee passes  to he even without the word heir Gibson v MonIfort Ves Amb SC oat v Markham  burr bagshaw v Spencer post a term attendant upon the inheritance be consider  as a part of it and can be disAnnexed in this court Charlton v low p W see  ante cook v cook there be hardly any family where the estate be considerable  but there be such term and it will be absurd to say that when a will be not  execute accord to the statute of fraud and perjury that such a term shall be  sever from the inheritance and pass notwithstanding the inheritance to which  it be annex will not pass under such a will Whitchurch v Whitchurch p W  Goodright v sale will scot v Fenhoulet bro Charles Rep hark   Litt b n it have  be insist that in this case a term of year be merge by be create to the same  person to who the fee be devise and who have likewise the reversionary  interest in another term for year but Mr Villierss counsel have on their side  contend that there be no merger because there be a trust of this term that  keep it separate and consequent be not merge but then the plaintiff contend  that as the testator have grant a lease for year to the same person to who he  have devise the fee pay a rend to the testator for life of per and that it be  a revocation of the fee but I be of opinion that the lease be merge in the  inheritance and be not like the case of cook v bullock cro James because there  the term be not to commence till after his death and then there be a join of  two estate that be inconsistent together which be the reason of the judge  determine it to be a revocation see stone v Evans post I find no authority  whatever at law and it depend upon the construction of the law that a demise  of a lease for year to the same person to who the fee be devise and which  commence in the life devisor be a revocation of the fee but in the above case  of cook v bullock it be agree by the court that such lease will be no  revocation Eq ab pl SC say vide Hakness v Bayley Prec Charles atkins the case  of peacock versus Spooner will not govern the present that case receive  different determination it be hear first by Lord chancellor Jeffereys in p t  afterward reheard in m t before the lord commissioner and on appeal to the  house of lord the judge opinion be take as appear by the minute Lord chief  baron atkins be of opinion that it belong to the executor of the wife Nevil  differ from he Gregory agree with atkins letchmere differ again and atkins er  p so alternate through all the judge but the decree of the lord commissioner  be affirm notwithstanding v see Ves then come the case of web v web vern where  my Lord Harcourt I reverse the master of the roll decree there the limitation  be to the husband for life to Thomas web Ann his wife for life remainder to  the heir of the body of Thomas and whether during the residue of the term the  wife die leave issue the whole term notwithstanding vest in the husband and he  may assign it there have be a distinction take of late year in the case of  peacock v Spooner that there it be sub potestate man as the estate move from  the husband but I can find no ground for this opinion from the minute of the  house of lord and therefore must be throw out of the ease a limitation in  marriage article to the husband for life to the wife for life remainder to the  issue of their two body will not entitle a husband by virtue of such a  remainder to dispose of the estate as he shall think proper but will be carry  into strict settlement in this court see heart v Middlehufirst post vol where  child be infant at the time of their bring a bill the allegation of it can be  read against they after they come of age term assign in trust for baron and  feme for their life remainder in trust for the heir of the body of the feme by  the baron baron and feme die Lord chancellor Jeffereys who first hear the  cause hold the whole interest of the term vest in the wife and must go to her  executor vern but say the lord commissioner upon a rehear the term shall go to  the heir of the body of the feme by the baron and not to her executor or  administrator the word heir of the body be a good description story person  peacock v Spooner vern