case Hodson of the six clerk office v earl of warrington Lord chancellor king  Eq can ab pl the defendant witness prove a deed and refer to it in his  deposition the plaintiff can compel the defendant to produce the deed at the  hear the reference thereto not make it part of the deposition at the hear of  this cause it appear that the defendant have examine a witness to prove a deed  execute by he to his brother to who he be administrator and peer William er p  claim to peer William be a creditor by judgement which judgement be say to be  discharge by the deed so prove in the cause the say deed be allege to amount  to a release in consequence whereof there will be asset to pay the debt clue  from the intestate to the plaintiff and now the question be whether the  plaintiff can compel the defendant to produce this deed it be urge for the  plaintiff that he may for the defendant have prove it and the witness have  refer thereto by his deposition the same be now become part of the deposition  itself and in the possession of the court and as the plaintiff can read any  part of the deposition take for the defendant by the same reason he may insist  on have the deed produce and that the master of the roll have make many order  to the like purpose to which it be answer it be true the master of the roll  have make many such order but then it be as true that whenever these come  before the Lord chancellor they be as constant set aside that a deed be not  part of the deposition unless mention therein in hc word and that as to the  deed the defendant have prove it remain at his election whether he will make  use of it or not that accord it be so rule in the case of Calmady v peer  William Calmady where the court will not oblige the defendant to produce a  deed which he have prove the Lord chancellor hold this to be the course of the  court and therefore will make no order for the defendant produce the deed vide  davers v davers ante vol in the same case it also appear that the plaintiff  have recover judgement in the petty bag after which the defendant bring a bill  and have stop the plaintiff two or three year by a injunction so that the  plaintiff in the judgement can not regular sue out execution without a to know  facias wherefore it be move that the plaintiff at law may under these  circumstance sue out execution without a to know facias and not suffer by the  act of the court say per cur I can alter the course of the court but must take  care to preserve it and it be above a year and a day after the judgement let  the plaintiff sue out his to know facias Q whether in this case the plaintiff  Hodson can not have take out execution and continue it by sheriff non to cause  to go breve agreeable to what be say by the court of b r in the case of booth  and booth salk this have since be alter see Michael v cue burr and williams  sander c that ed note to Underhill v Devereux peer William de term S the  number three