
    Feb. 1807.
    Joseph Lynde against James Judd.
    ACTION of assumpsit.
    
    _ _ . , , , , , „ , On trial to the jury, Dwight, tor the defendant, oilered Mr. Ingersoll as a witness to prove a paper in his hands.
    Mr Ingersoll himself objected to producing the paper,
    It appeared that the paper had been delivered to him, as counsel in another case by a client, with instructions not to make use of it in court.
    An attorney cannot be compelled to produce in 6,101 was left with him by a ('!i-entin another
    ' By the Court. Mr; Ingersoll cannot be compelled to exhibit it.
    
      Dwight then offered a copy.
    Edwards, contra,
    objected, on the ground, that it was evidence of an inferior nature.
    By the Court. The copy, after being proved, may be read.
    The witness to prove the copy said, that the defendant read a paper as the original, and he, the witness, looked at the copy, and it agreed with the paper read to him. *
    Where an o riginai paper is m the hands of an attorney under such circumstances that he camipt be compelled to produce i« in evidence*, the party may prove and exhibit a copy. A copy may be proved, by comparing it •with the original, as read by another person.
    
      Mdiuards objected to the sufficiency of the proof, because it did not show that the paper réad by the defendant was in fact the original; or, if it was, that the defendant read it correctly.
    
      _Quere> ther there ought not to he some- &v\-* dero» that the paper read as the original was in fact sUeh.
   By the Court.

This is the usual mode of corn» paring papers. The proof is sufficient to entitle the party to read the copy. 
      
      
         Vide M‘Neil v. Pe chard, 1 Esp. Cas. 263.
     