bartlett against Pickersgill in Chanc Trin and Geo two S c Eden cite burr see  the king v Boston east n comment on and doubt hear v Pilley l r Ch discuss and  uphold as bind where the fact are identical James v smith Ch affirm on appeal  pound W n overrule Rochefoucauld v Boustead Ch parole evidence can be admit to  show that a party have agree for the purchase of a estate in his own name have  in fact purchase it on behalf of another person the defendant buy a estate for  the plaintiff but there be no write agreement between they nor be any part of  the money pay by the plaintiff defendant article for the estate in his own  name and refuse to convey to the plaintiff this bill be bring to compel a  conveyance question whether the plaintiff may give parole evidence of this  Lord keeper Henley without hear counsel for defendant the question be whether  this evidence be competent or not this will depend upon the statute of fraud  to allow it in this case will be to overturn the statute the reason of make  that statute be the confusion of property owe to perjury either by money or  affection the statute say no trust shall be of land unless by memorandum in  write except such trust as arise by operation of law this be not like the case  of money pay by one man and the conveyance take in the name of another there  the bill charge that the estate be buy by 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 if I be to allow the  evidence in this present case I do not know a case where the statute will take  place the judge have take several case out of the statute as agreement in part  execute if Bartlett have pay any 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 of the agreement but as there be none Cox chancery case the bill  must be dismiss with cost Reg lib a fol N B the defendant Pickersgill have by  his answer deny the trust be indict for perjury in that particular and convict  on the evidence of the plaintiff circumstance confirm the testimony and proof  by other witness of declaration by defendant afterward plaintiff petition for  leave to file a supplemental bill in nature of a bill of review state this  conviction but Lord keeper Henley dismiss this petition d November