case Sanson ux versus Rumsey Eq can ab pl S c a by answer confess he have in a  passion burn his marriage article but it be prove that he have produce they  after the time he say they be burn he be commit and though he make oath he  have they not and can not produce they yet the court will not discharge he  till he consent to admit the article to be as in the bill the defendant  confess that he have in a passion burn the article make upon his marriage with  the daughter of Mr Gamage but it be make appear that he produce and exhibit  they at the execution of a commission subsequent in time to the day on which  he pretend to have burn they he be commit a prisoner to the fleet until he  shall produce they and although he afterward make oath he have they not and  can not produce they and that it be insist for he that although the burn of  the article be a great misdemeanour yet a man be not to suffer perpetual  imprisonment because he can not do what be impossible for he to do yet he can  not be discharge until he have consent to admit the article be to the effect  in the bill the editor have not be able to find any entry of the decree in  this case but by a entry of a order d march it appear the defendant have be  decree to pay tax cost Reg lib b fol vide Eyton v Eyton ante p and case cite  in note there so where a settlement under which the plaintiff claim be lose  but have be prove in chancery by the plaintiff themselves year before when  they be not concern in interest though they have since become entitle bythat  deed it be order that a cop qy attest of the deed shall be admit to be read at  law and also that the plaintiff deposition shall be read to prove the deed  although they then claim under it lady Holcroft v smith Tr Freem and where a  parole agreement confess in the answer find on a write agreement which be lose  it shall be execute hosier v read Mod and as a general principle where deed be  destroy by a party interest equity will go far than law in odium spoliator  coke v hellier ves Delane v tenison bro p c and in such case parole evidence  of its content will be allow the destruction be reasonable show be the best  proof the thing will then admit coal v Gibson ves saltern v Melhuish Amb for  the rule of evidence in case of a lose or destroy deed vide Whitfield v  Fausset ves saltern v Melhuish ub sup note on a bill to supply the loss of a  deed charge to be in the defendant hand though a strong case for make a  immediate decree yet a trial at law must be direct if defendant insist on it  but court of law will always admit the deposition of witness in equity to be  read so no order necessary Clavering v Clavering ves and deed be presume to be  lose such dict per master of the roll Pickering v Lord Stamford Ves jun Vernon  chancery case er p