If the only executed copy of the agreement is in the hands of a defendant (c), or of a third party (d), either party can, as of course, procure an order, before trial, for its previous production for the purpose of inspection and of being stamped; and where the sole uncopied original was surreptitiously obtained from the plaintiff by the defendant who swore that he had lost it, he was ordered to produce a copy for the purpose of being stamped, and was precluded from setting up the unstamped original (e); but this has been overruled in a very recent case (f).

Evidence of intention, when admissible.

Production of contract, when ordered.

(x) Hodges v. Horsfall, 1 Russ. & Myl. 116.

(y) See Doe v. Westlake, 4 B. & Ald. 57.

(z) Doe v. Morgan, 1 Cr. & Mee. 235.

(a) Doe d. Gord v. Needs, 2 Mee. & W. 129; and see Colpoys v. Col-poys, Jac. 464.

(b) See Brodie v. St. Paul, 1 Ves. jun. 326; and see 1 Sch. & Lef. 36.

(c) Blakey v. Porter, 1 Taunt. 386; King v. King, 4 Taunt. 666; Hall v. Bainbridge, 3 Dowl. & L. 92.

(d) Gigner v. Bayly, 5 Moore, 71.

(e) Bousfield v. Godfrey, 5 Bing. 418; and see, in Equity, Blair v. Or-mond, 1 De G. & S. 428; Smith v. Henley, 1 Phil. 391.

(f) Bankin v. Hamilton, 14 Jur. 930.

Where two original copies are retained, one by each party, the party who loses his copy, cannot, at Law, compel the other party to produce his copy at the trial, or for the purpose of inspection; but is driven to a Bill of discovery (f): whether a Court of Law will compel its production for the mere purpose of stamping, seems to be doubtful (g).