Case ID: port_9/html/0289-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ORMOND, J. — There", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CLEMENS vs. PATTON, DONEGAN & CO.
    1. Entries made in a merchant’s books, in the hand writing of a deceased clerk, may be proved by a witness acquainted with his writing.
    Error to Madisori Circuit court.
    Assumpsit on account, before Coleman, J.
    The defendants in this court, brought suit against the plaintiff, in assumpsit, and proved by their clerks, all the items of their account,- but a small amount; to prove which, they introduced evidence that one Edward Doe,another of their clerks, who was dead, that the items not proved by the’ other'clerks, were in his hand writing ; that Doe was the only witness by whom these-items could be proved ; that his habit was to charge articles as he delivered them, and that he was never known to make other than correct charges. This evidence was objected to, but permitted by the court to go to the jury.-
    
      Me Clung, fob plaintiff in error.
   ORMOND, J. — There

can be no! doubt that the evidence Was correctly admitted.

The rule is thus laid down by Mr. Starkie, 639, 1 voL “Entries made in the hand writing of an agent, usually employed in the delivery of goods, and made in the ordinary ■ ourse of business, of the1 delivery of particular goods to the defendant, are evidence of the fact, after his death, provided it be shown that such entries were contemporary with the supposed delivery.”

Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Doe vs. Robson, (15 East’s Rep. 32,) puts the. reception of evidence of this character on the ground of “ the total absence of interest in the person making the entry to pervert the fact, and at the same time, a competency in him to know it.”

The precise question determined in this case, was decided in the case of King vs. Maddux’s ex’rs, (7 Harris & Johnson, 407.)

Let the judgment be affirmed.