case join versus Statham October see clinan v cook Sch Lef a bill bring to  carry a agreement into execution for a lease of a house which be sign by the  defendant the lessor only who by his answer insist it ought to be insert in  the agreement that the tenant shall pay the rend clear of tax the plaintiff  who write the agreement have omit to make it so and offer to read evidence to  show this be a part of the agreement the evidence ought to be admit for if  there have be any omission the defendant ought to have the benefit of it by  way of objection to a specific performance the bill be bring to carry a  agreement into execution for a lease of a house during the life of the  defendant wife which be sign by the defendant the lessor only upon the face of  the agreement the plaintiff be to pay a rend of nine pound ayear the defendant  insist by his answer that it ought to have be insert in the agreement that the  tenant shall pay the rend clear of tax but the plaintiff have write the  agreement himself and omit to make it clear of tax and that the defendant  unless this have be the agreement will not have sink the rend from fourteen  pound to nine pound and offer to read evidence to show this be part of the  agreement the plaintiff counsel insist that the defendant ought not to be  admit to parole proof to add to the write agreement which be express guard  against by the statute of fraud and perjury the case cite for the plaintiff be  cheney case   and Selwin versus brown Cas in Lord Talbot time atkins for the  defendant be cite walker versus walker December the that and that before Lord  Hardwicke vide ante Tr atk case pa Lord chancellor I permit this point to be  debate at large because it be decisive in the cause for I be very clear this  evidence ought to be read atkins er p this have be take up by way of objection  to the plaintiff bill the constant doctrine of this court be that it be in  their discretion whether in such a bill they will decree a specific  performance or leave the plaintiff to his remedy at law now have not the  defendant a right to insist either on account of a omission mistake or fraud  that the plaintiff shall not have a specific performance it be a very common  defence in this court and there be no doubt but it ought to be receive and  quite equal whether it be insist on as a mistake or a fraud it appear the  agreement be draw and write by the plaintiff himself the defendant too can  write but be a marksman only if there have be a omission shall not the  defendant have the benefit of it by way of objection to a specific performance  there have be many case in this court where such evidence have be admit  suppose a agreement for a mortgage draw by the mortgagee the mortgagor be a  marksman and the mortgagee omit to insert a covenant for redemption and then  bring a bill to foreclose shall not the mortgagor be at liberty to insist in  this court upon read evidence to show the omission so in a case which have  happen of the mortgage be draw in two deed one a absolute conveyance the other  a defeasance and the mortgagee omit to execute the defeasance the mortgagor  shall be admit to show the mistake walker v walker ante atk vol suppose the  defendant have be the plaintiff and have bring the bill for a specific  performance of the agreement I do not see but he may have be allow the benefit  of disclose this to the court atkins because it be a agreement executory only  vide rondeau v Wyatt bro Charles Rep and as in lease there be always covenant  relate to tax the master will inquire what the agreement be as to tax and  therefore the proof offer here be not a variation of the agreement but be  explanatory only what those tax be lamb of opinion to allow the evidence of  the omission in the lease to be read