case colt all versus woollaston and arnold refer to Stewart v Austin l r Eq  Ramshire v Bolton l r Eq hill v lane l r Eq at the roll bill in equity lie to  recover back money pay on a bubble the plaintiff bring their bill to be repay  the two several sum of pound and pound which they have pay to the defendant as  manager and projector of a bubble call the land security and oil patent the  defendant woollaston have it seem invent a project for extract oil out of  English radish and get a patent for the sole exercise of this invention have  buy a estate for pound call Sutton marsh in Lincolnshire former the estate of  lady Cornbury which be then in mortgage for pound in June this woollaston make  public this project and assign his oil patent to the defendant Arnold in trust  for all the contributor towards the project which he divide into five thousand  share value every share at pound in order to raise pound and as a  encouragement and security for all the contributor woollaston convey his  purchase of Sutton marsh to the defendant Arnold and his heir in trust in the  first place to peer William pay off the two mortgage be pound and afterward to  pay to himself the say woollaston pound in all pound and as to the surplus  which the estate will raise it be to be for the benefit of the contributor the  project or bubble be to be call the land security and oil patent and be  represent by the defendant to be a most advantageous project without any  hazard there be land security give for the benefit of the contributor the  plaintiff pay in to the defendant Arnold the several sum of pound and pound  for six share apiece for which Arnold give they receipt and the projector sell  about ticket amount to pound in August the project fail no oil have ever be  make or radish sow on the premise whereupon the contributor with some  resentment call upon the projector for their money which occasion the  projector to advertise that in six month time they will return the money with  interest but afterward this be refuse insist for the defendant that the  plaintiff be acquaint with this security as to the land they ought to resort  thither that there can be no imposition in this case because the party have  notice and the extract oil out of radish have have the sanction of a patent  can not be think a cheat and as to the advertisement peer William er p it be  pretend they be gain by threaten and that the party admit they be aggrieve  have their remedy at law peer William master of the roll this be a imposition  to propose the surplus of the value of a estate which cost but pound after  pound charge upon it which be much more than double the value as a security to  the contributor who lie out their money upon this project it be give they  moonshine instead of any thing real and the proof be very slight whereas it  ought to have be extreme strong it be hard to believe that any person will  consent to be so impose upon and what make it worse be that this great sum of  pound be reserve to the defendant the projector himself the gain the patent  can be no sanction to the cheat because the patent do not secure the patentee  if it be not a new invention but other may use the same or if it be not the  first patent the patentee be not secure from a action and patent of new  invention as well as grant of other thing may be obtain by surprise and false  suggestion if this be a fraud against any private or single person a court of  equity will relieve a strong where it be a fraud against great number against  multitude where the mischief be more extensive and many family thereby ruin it  be no objection that the party have their remedy at law and may bring a action  for money have and receive for the plaintiff own use for in case of fraud post  Stent versus Bailis the court of equity have a concurrent jurisdiction with  the commonlaw matter of fraud be the great subject of relief here Sowerby v  warder Cox peer William accord case of this nature have frequent meet with  relief in this court as in Aaron hill case which be a patent for extract oil  out of beech which be also divide into share as this be and a security propose  and agree to be make of land which come out to be land incognito betwixt the  degree of latitude and and in the principal case the land after the pound pay  seem to be worth as little as Aaron hill and as to the pretence of gain the  advertisement by force the contributor be angry and have reason to be so and  one of the contributor though it do not appear to have be either of the  plaintiff threaten to cut the defendant throat but this all end in a arrest of  one of the defendant which be a lawful proceed and after all these threaten be  over the last advertisement be give out by the defendant on the that of  September further it be just that the defendant Arnold as well as the  defendant woollaston shall be charge for as woollaston be the first projector  and procurer of the patent and purchaser of the land so Arnold be his trustee  accept the conveyance be the treasurer receive the money and give the receipt  be partner in the fraud and plain sharing in sin therefore decree both the  defendant to pay back to the plaintiff their principal interest and cost note  the same decree be make in the case of Spackman versus woollaston which be the  next cause in the paper of the same nature against the same defendant and on  the same project