case attorneygeneral at the relation of hindley versus SUDELL HESKITH and  SCARSBRICK Eq Abr c S c a mortgage a manor to which a advowson be appendant in  fee tot b then a present c by simony and c be f or that reason refuse by the  bishop a present d who be admit c but after resign and be again present by a  and b the relator have get a assignment of the king title for the simony bring  his Q hinder and a bill in this court that the mortgage may not be set up nor  give in evidence against he at law and decree accord the defendant Heskith  seize of a manor with a advowson appendant make a mortgage of the say manor in  fee which mortgage after come to the defendant Scarsbrick then he present one  b by simony and b be for that reason refuse by the bishop then he present the  defendant Sudell and he be institute and induct the relator Hindley be inform  of b s simony apply for the king title but before he have get it Sudell resign  and be again present by Heskith and Scarsbrick the plaintiff bring a how imp  and also this bill to discover if it be not agree that notwithstanding the  mortgage the mortgagor shall present and to be relieve and that the mortgage  may not be give in evidence at law as to the discovery of the simony which the  bill seek the defendant demurrer and it be allow by the court but as to the  other matter it be urge for the relator that if this court will not assist the  statute of simony will signify nothing and that this court help precedent in  chancery the king to a equity of redemption be entitle by forfeiture for  treason it be likewise urge that the mortgagee be but a trustee for the  mortgagor and in this case the mortgagee join with the mortgagor which show he  do not do it as insist on his own right and the policy of the law be that one  who have be guilty of simony shall not be admit to present again a mortgage  here be consider only as a security for money now the mortgagee money be never  the better secure and it be a thing not saleable and therefore the mortgagee  be not to have presentation and all that be seek be but to remove a impediment  to try a title on the other side it be say the mortgagee be not a trustee in  this matter especial the mortgagee be in possession that a advowson be  valuable and comprehend within the mortgage and may be sell and this be a  penal law and not to be aid in this court Lord keeper I consider what will be  the consequence both way and if this practice be not avoid it will in a great  measure avoid the law against simony for this will lead to the case of trustee  and it be a constant rule here that Cestuique trust shall have the benefit of  the thing if he be to have it to all intent but to forfeit then the corrupt  patron shall present by his trustee which be contrary to the plain intention  of the act and though this be call a penal law yet this court will aid  remedial law not by make they more penal but to let they have their course and  the law know nothing of a trust and therefore this court will take care that  its own notion shall not be make use of to elude so good and beneficial a law  and decree the title not to be set up precedent in chancery er p precedent in  chancery de boundary paschae in curian porter