Case ID: va_1/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The PRESIDENT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lewis, Executor of Thruston, v. Norton.
    April Term, 1792.
    Evidence — Entries in Books — Admissibility.—A book of accounts, in the band-writing- of, and kept by, a clerk, who is since dead, is proper evidence, upon those facts being proved.
    This was an action on the case, brought by the-appellee against the appellant in the District Court of Williamsburg, upon an asumpsit. On the general issue, the counsel for *the appellee offered in evidence to prove his claim, his store books, which were proved to be in the hand writing of one of the appellee’s book keepers, then dead. This was objected to byr the appellant’s counsel: but the court permitting it to go to the jury as evidence, connected with other testimony, such as a bill of exchange drawn by Thruston on the ap-pellee, which they paid, as well as sundry letters from Thruston to the appellee, and invoices of goods in the hand writing of Thruston; — a bill of exceptions was filed by the appellant’s counsel, and an appeal prayed and granted to this court. The letters, bill, invoices, and a note of hand given by Thruston to the appellee, are spread upon the record, which also states, that it was proved by a witness, that the books of the appellee were in general regularly kept.
    
      
       Evidence — Entries in Books — Admissibility.—On this cuestión, see tbe principal case cited, in Wells v. Ayers, 81 Va. 314, 5 S. E. Rep. 21; Barley v. Byrd, 95 Va. 321, 28 S. E. Rep. 329; Vinal v. Gilman, 21 W. Va. 309: footote to Downer v. Morrison, 2 Gratt. 250; Owens v. Adams, 18 Fed. Cas. 926.
    
   The PRESIDENT

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ever since the decision in lord Torring-ton case, the law has been settled, that a bdok of accounts in the hand writing of, and kept by, a clerk who is since dead, is proper evidence upon those facts being proved.

The District Court therefore did right in admitting those books, with the other evidence, to go to the jury, for them to weigh, and to" produce on their minds such conviction, as such evidence might in their opinion deserve.