Hullock,  B. — I  concur  in  the  opinion  expressed  by  the
Lord  Chief  Baron,  and  think  that  this  nonsuit  cannot  be
sustained.  Having  executed  the  counterpart,  the  defen-
dants were  precluded  from  objecting  to  its  admissibility,
and  from  impeaching  its  validity  by  producing  the  original
lease.  If  the  defendants  could  not  produce  it,  it  was  not
necessary  for  the  plaintiffs  to  do  so.  That  has  been  de-
cided in  several  cases.  In  -Roe  v.  Davis  (a),  which  was
an  action  of  ejectment  upon  a  clause  of  re-entry  in  a  lease,
on  non-payment  of  rent,  against  the  assignee  of  the  lease,
a  counterpart  was  received  as  sufficient  evidence  of  the

(<i)  7  East,  363.
120  CASJ&S  IN  THE  EKCiJEQU£E,.
Xxch.  of  Pkas,  holding  upon  thai  conditjw*  .  There,  the.  defendant  was
g*8'  s  not  the  original  lessee ;  .but'the  lea*ne<i  Judge,  at  the  trial,
received  the  evidence,  and  I<«ord  Tetft6r(ien,  then  at\  the
bar,  having  urged  eyer^tppieagainrt  to.a4fii$ftihitity,  the
ruling  of  the  learned  Judge  was. qyheld.  <  The  «ae  of
Burleigh .  V*  Sjtile&  is  a  tstUL  ^txpngtr .  decagiott.  In  ihat
case  it  was,  held,  that^/counterpajr^  of  w^iodentore,  exe-/
cuted  by  the  defendant,,  in  which  itwaa  r^ci^d,  thai  one
Eider  had  put  himself  apprentice  wjfch  the  defendant,  was
sufficient  evidence  against;  the  defendant* :  that  \R«fer
had  executed  the  other  part  of  the  indenture,  although  tl^e
declaration  proceeded  upon  the  indenture  executed;  by
Roller.  U  seem?  to  me,  therefore,  that  this  -counterpart
was  admissible  as  original  evidence,  and  precluded. 'the
defendants  from  going  into  proof  of  the  original  lease;  but
if  it,  were  not  properly  stamped,  itfWpuld.be  a4i*4»ihle
for  no  purpose,  and  could  not  be^  jceceiv^d  ^  impeach  the  ;
validity  of  the  counterpart* ....
