
    Birdsall and Birdsall, ex’rs. vs. Pixly.
    A rule to shew anattarhment should^not isderéd on a pe" y°r th® production of papers to ena^ec^rParty to
    Motion for a rule to produce papers. A petition was presented, stating that this suit had been commenced for the recovery of a sum of money due as.rent on a lease executed by the testator to the defendant; that the lease had been clandestinely taken from the testator by the defendant, or by . . , ^ / his aid and procurement; and that the plaintiffs were unable to declare, &c. The petition further stated that it was intended to lay the venue in the county of Chenango. The petition was verified by affidavits.
   The Court ordered the lease to be deposited in the clerk’s office of the county of Chenango, within twenty days after service of notice of the rule of the court, or that the defendant shew cause, by the first day of the next term, why an attachment should not issue against him. (2 Revised Statutes, 199;)  