Case ID: scl_17/html/0540-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ker Boyce v. Isaac I. Foster.
    Columbia,
    May, 1830.
    The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to produce his books in a Court of Law, where they do not form a necessary part of his own evidence; nor will the Court grant a continuance, on the ground of the plaintiff’s refusal to biing his books into Court. Such a proceeding would be oppressive on plaintiffs residing at a distance; particularly, wheie there was no proof, that a transcript had been asked for, and refused. The defendant, after notice, may give evidence of the contents; or if he have not such evidence, he may obtain ample relief by a resort to the Court of Equity for a discovery.
    Parol evidence is inadmissible to vary, or contradict, a written agreement, entered into upon an adjustment of accounts between the parties, if evidence were offered of a mistake in the settlement, it would be admissible, even in an action upon a sealed note given for the balance.
   Per Curiam,

on appeal from the decision.of Mr. Justice O’Neall,, at Union, Spring Term, 1830.

Motion refused.