case barret versus gore and umfreville December at law you may in a action of  trespass examine a defendant in favour of another defendant where be be not  interest in the event of the cause but there he can be examine for the  plaintiff the bill be bring for a specific performance of a agreement which be  deposit in the hand of the defendant umfreville by the mutual consent of the  plaintiff and the defendant sir Samuel gore umfreville too be the attorney who  draw up the agreement some dispute arise afterward between the plaintiff and  the principal defendant the plaintiff send his agent to umfreville to desire a  copy of the agreement he tell he he will not give he one for it be no  agreement as he have not be pay for it at another time threaten he will burn  it and at a three that he will destroy it and afterward in breach of his trust  deliver it up to the defendant sir Samuel gore at the hear of the cause the  defendant sir Samuel gore offer to read the deposition of the defendant  umfreville in order to prove it a conditional agreement only and for other  purpose the plaintiff counsel object to his evidence as swear to excuse  himself and be likewise to prove fact direct contrary to his answer Lord  Hardwicke allow the objection and say to be sure even at law you may in a  action of trespass examine a defendant in favour of another defendant vide  piddock v brown p W nightingale v Dodd Amb where he be not interest in the  event of the cause but there he can be examine for the plaintiff because by  make he a party to the action the plaintiff have preclude himself from the  benefit of his evidence this court go far and you may not only read the  deposition of one defendant for a another but for the plaintiff likewise yet  if the defendant who be offer in evidence for another defendant may not  necessary but by possibility only be liable to cost this be always a reason  for refuse his evidence atkins because he be interest so far as to be swear to  excuse himself and though it be object here by sir Samuel gore counsel that  this be bring atkins er p he before the court with his hand tie for no other  person be present at the time of the agreement between Barret and gore but  umfreville yet I do not think even this be sufficient to entitle the defendant  sir Samuel gore to read this deposition for if a person will act in such a  manner as to make himself a proper party to the cause and liable prima fancy  to the cost though he be the only person present at the agreement yet the rule  must prevail against his deposition be read as evidence and his lordship  determine accord