case cottington versus fletcher the same day the plaintiff while a papist  assign a advowson to the defendant for the term of year and have conform have  bring his bill for a reassignment of the term suggest he have only assign it  in trust for himself and to avoid the penalty of the statute of James I and I  W m the defendant plead the statute of fraud and perjury be bar to the  discovery but by his answer admit that the advowson be assign to he for the  purpose charge by the bill Lord Hardwicke hold the plea must be overrule be  couple with a answer which admit the fact Croyston v bayne Prec Charles  Symondson v Tweed Prec Charles attorney general v day Ves potter v potter Ves  Gunter v Halsey Amb Whitchurch v Bevis bro Charles Rep Mr cottington who be  former a papist while he be of the Romish persuasion assign a advowson to the  defendant for the term of year atkins since be conformity to the protestant  religion he have bring a bill against the defendant for a reassignment of the  term suggest that he have only assign it in trust for himself and in order to  avoid the penalty in the statute of James cap sect c and W m c which vest the  presentation of live in the gift of papist in the two university to this bill  the defendant plead the statute of fraud and perjury in bar to the discovery  and say that there be no declaration of trust in write but by his answer admit  that the advowson be assign to he for the purpose charge by the bill and that  he never intend to take any benefit to himself otherwise than in present the  other defendant Mr loggin to the church upon the next avoidance for that he be  recommend by Mr loggin to the plaintiff as a proper person for a grantee and  that he do not know the plaintiff above a month before the grant Lord  chancellor I be of opinion that the plea ought to be overrule undoubted if the  plea stand by itself it may have be a sufficient plea but couple with the  answer which be a full admission of the fact it must overrule the plea if the  admission and confession by the answer amount to a admission and confessionn  of a trust for the defendant loggin as to the first avoidance the consequence  of this be a result trust for the plaintiff after the presentment to loggin be  perform and this be the case upon the statute of fraud and perjury be the  admission of a express trust to one person be likewise the admission of a  result trust for another Loyd v spillet ante if the defendant have demurrer to  this part of the bill it may have be of a different consideration for as this  assignment be do in fraud of the law and mere in order to evadeathe statute of  James ch and I will mark ch I doubt at the hear whether the plaintiff can be  relieve such fraudulent conveyance be make absolute against the grantor atkins  the act of whether stat ch do not in the case of a papist make the whole trust  void but only the turn upon a avoidance which be vest in the univer be thirsty  in the present case the plaintiff conform before there be any avoidance and  consequent there be nothing vest in the university the act of papist be purge  upon their conformity to the protestant religion and be free and discharge  from any penalty and loss which they may otherwise sustain in respect of their  recusancy vide James c sect atkins er p