
    
      James R. Hinds and wife vs. Nathan Evans.
    
    1. Preliminary to the offer of an office copy of a deed in evidence, and to establish its loss, the plaintiffs called the Clerk of the Court, who said that it had been left with him to be recorded and afterwards safely kept; that it was recorded, and deposited somewhere amongst his papers ; that he had not been served with a subpoena duces tecum, but particularly requested to produce it; that on the day of trial and during the sitting of the Court he had hastily looked for the deed without finding it, but thought upon a more careful search it could be found. Proof of loss held insufficient.
    
      Before Wardlaw, J. at Marion, Fall Term, 1842.
    Trespass to try titles.
    The plaintiffs endeavored to make proof, preliminary to the offer of an office copy of a deed, and to establish the loss, examined the Clerk of the Court. He said that he was Register of mesne conveyances, and a near friend of the plaintiff; that the deed was left with him tobe recorded, and afterwards safely kept; that it was recorded, and not restored to the owners, but deposited somewhere amongst his papers; that he had not been served with a supcena duces tecum, but had been particularly requested to produce the deed ; and that on the day of trial, during the sitting of the Court, he had hastily looked for it, but had not found it, although he had no doubt that by a more careful search he could find it.
    The presiding judge held the proof of loss insufficient. The plaintiffs submitted to a non-suit, reserving the right to move to set it aside.
    The plaintiffs moved to set aside the non-suit, on the ground that under the proof made, the office copy of the deed ought to have been received in evidence,
    Sims, for the motion, contended that an office copy of the deed should have been admitted;
    cited the Act of 1731, 3 Stat. 303, sec. 30; Harper, 76; 3 M’Cord, 318,
    Darqan, contra,
    cited 1 Bay, 493.
   Curia, iper

Wardlaw, J.

Under the case of Purvis vs. Robinson, 1st Bay, 493, and other cases following it, proof of the loss of a deed, to admit an office copy, need not be plenary; that proper search has been made in the place to which the has been stowed, without finding it, will gen-* erally be sufficient; but a hasty search, with a belief that the deed could be found if well looked for, cannot justify the introduction of a copy: unless we mean to leave it discretionary with the párties or their agents whether to produce the original or a copy.

The motion is dismissed.

Richardson, O’Npall., Evans and Bütler, J J, concurred,  