Case ID: rob_1/html/0257-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bullard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles A. J. Belot v. John Donnavan.
    A witness may be admitted to prove that the date of a bond offered in evidenoS was a a clerical error, and to establish the real time of its execution.
    This case was tried before the Parish Court of New Orleans, Maurian, J. It was proved that the plaintiff was thrown down and driven over by a dray, belonging to and in the employment of the defendant; and that the injury ivas not the result of mere accident, but the consequence of rapid and Careless driving.
    
      JPreaux, for the appellee,
    submitted the case without argument. No counsel appeared for the appellant. •
   Bullard, J.

This is an action to recover damages for an injury

received by the plaintiff, in consequence, of being run over by the defendant’s dray. He recovered two hundred dollars, and the defendant appealed. The case turns principally upon mere questions of fact; and on the merits nothing is shown which would justify our interference. There is, however, a bill of exceptions in the record, which we are expected probably to notice, although the case has been submitted by the appellant without argument.

It appears that .on the trial, the plaintiff, in order to prove that the dray was owned by the defendant, and that he had a license to run. it, according to the city ordinances, produced a license bond dated in 1836, and offered to prove that its proper date was 1837, within which year the injury was sustained; and the bill of exceptions was taken to the ruling of the court, by which that evidence was admitted. It was shown, as itappears by the same bill, that the bond was contained in a bound book, all the entries in which, both before and after the one in question, were in 1837, having been altered from 1836 in the printed form; and the evidence was in our opinion properly admitted to show that it was a mere clerical error or omission, more especially as a dray of the same number was actually employed during that year, and we are not to presume, nor could the defendant allege that it was running without any license, and in violation of the city regulations.

Judgment affirmed.