New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-06-24

be r-yrrd end new THAI ordered before
Sixth Judicial District payment OF co. Is above m"as"as~
Before Judges D,Lv. BaApv aud thLrcs.
Richard b. ConAha .s< Janes ssamlrr.
DAILY. +. jim Morrill, ag', Whiteheai, 4 r.. u.
Smith 3 proved that the books poduce1 xefe hs s.'ass
party that he had eek aud that he tes tstr
and but there wa 10 proof h.s any zee
'he service. eu"'ed in the sel had be-. saa, ,sas.~a
that gore think that ensh, In which Wa tsaety
determined nat ~ns Of shs ss .,,,. %.sssS 90 .:
dered though has been fequcnty nfimat"d thai h rr"S
was books could b. received used IL sv
Sence yo,harsh ast Tnsyer. - Johu. +l. scli.s .S
Mstber, ~ Wand, ~ Foster at C3lers. ! smith
present c.e a. the only proof before III. Jac. br. ,A..
he plaintiff erl and that -ho had deal, With
tni. proof hsd bess supplied am Of eps,s ,s.t
1t woud sufficient, to an,hors. uasnea. 20:
practice d SLOWING tie py BOOKS VI accounts 70 DO resolved
evidence of the existence Il tho debt which ~
contrary to ,l' EDsi,h ruiz, 81 Com sT W.. az.
aud in New Jersey with toe early Dueh coooa' In -ho.s
their boi. q seccau where !, va. .cisowdsad ys,rI
that had been dealing between the parties provided tue
Sis .'y. %cS S i s' r. I'll s .sd
then sysp them especially where they we're ~
the Dutch tribunals Of New York In utrodacos 70 T.
| D. Smith. aud the practice. loss s''ss-
dm HoIsId Who .-til.d Nos snsl.ad r.r Br.ia.I IA
In ,h Dutch Col na COurs the parties Appeared bsere thu
. which %. Cour, thou either party nigh, pss
20 hi. oath 50 objection species sv.aos
tribunals OF les. force the party who made 'ss
euuie. could respect the truth
item In Nov England they wi.'y retained tbs
feature Of the supPeory oath Of The party 'ubaLssns As
ofthe In with the practices IL allowing
such bo evidence and where the matter aos gsst By
.eu,- which The csse Ia Mains and Rhode .asd or sass
iRs 9th q ils p.iy g GdcA. Law Res LOAF d. iiS,
In Case Potter s Johns 81. tn. pr.co. Of .s~iss ~
received a. e,denc. was rcosbissd as usage s.s.hsd In
Court, Of this State Il declared TO be contrary ,As
barra.sed the Court finding they snpr'd H. that tss
hsd crep and that acu or mp-ssle 10 naa,
other ooun,re. o requiring 10 respect =, such evidence,
sppeo oath ofhe parry give fa effect bat DECLARED
that they bad authority require Admit the oath Il the
parry instead of doing thing the other stss r-ps
d.og The practice contrary 70 the common OF el~ so
that hsd been the aw from tho Early settlement 81 ths
colony ard therefore not sctea BY The povos II tbs
Con aituion retaining seh par. 81 The comnon a- Tor msd
ply ad that II this mode Of proof 10 be tolerated the pssTs
having Who'll. question nsettIed and ausn psdly
cane e.ois The sapIes' Court 'srn In xo,e0sh ~ ny".
ns OPT ion, declaring that II Z, the oommos s~
lie conseuned the Courts u N.- England snd thu sst- s
Pennsyvsnis for adopting rule 81 the civil Law le.sd II ,hs
Eps.b ule declared that by .~ party cOud not :. al.
lowed 70 bs acooun,s that the ns even With thss
c1nt. snd predicted recognition Of practice sp
pies Of necessity would be fiowed By most mssie'Sn.
Bot other member. Of the Court 10 opinion es~
hid ben Too long c.ionrd ard felt 10 oar Coor. and ,S
late question its admissby but Instead 81
tribunals and declaring mat the party should could BE- 'Ham
ned oath % tho Truth or corrctns 4 .os entries s
., ,,, s Scb 80 ,ne ~ en- ,snTrsd - ssIsep D.
the admission Of III. bs Influenced. Doubt ey ~hst
strongly Insisted upon BY Judge Plat 10 bis dissenting epS,
hey had authority 10 require aud could not admits Psy
The examination Of these CASE. will c,a ha4
very clear conception Of the q the question eet. ,ss
CIV b.srr he Revolution fr H. BY long usage snd ssssr
sd pon hse before that event, become tho eootn-d "s
al f<S
~, S 10 fore. !. e Ir..is o.. Of tas R.,oa.o. .ad va
.SsisB i}ey so hey p1ss.sy
thar be rue ~hee tn.J road in sA existed from toe limo
of,hs Da.es and aaa essn IN psee. oe.I.oa G mar. s.s
one h.serd ysa ne, ~gad a.,. i.sns an s..y nss ct
hsd don bad ben In from the earliest psnd 81 In
,nd long ,b.sed lssss This v.oA
relieved from 81 dtcny in respect 70 the fsssfs ~
Truth Of the entris. asht be required r formed
much part Of thb oourI o pocssure any S- aud fssa
upon ,h. general aa'hory long settled uass-sAsJ sd
b. H.sd q an, hi. hey oI.d lot: q. Essi.9 bod.
a., MadoI Hol, 49, ard Phes The E.li q rgra.ssa
sss tha, san.D, shop boob wa. not o. t's sydsse.
tss. omehIpr noTe shoad Il b. rus q the
w s1 s,a Com G ss.s d. pes. .so. 4
allowing boois with h 'sppseo oath % .n'sss
:. tine 3 ~. . ps ). =. a.i.a s1 % ' a... -.
b. eyiospo. IN ooarte. vhers tbs civil A~ pre-
, .as. soHs, apon. Par. it, " an o. Meyer. f.s,s
ot+. Judesr., a. VI, cd e, s. T. Code Civil, % Is.
a., an: 7l Tie Jgdsss aOgbt concluded FROM IN -
of H.. eornuos AID from Blaessnes in,.rpr.uon tas
,v ~ M, the u party I'm
ion of the could be sloved But f,~sx
Necessity q pefIsas n certain cas.s ths books when
p, BY psrty 10 Be ICED instruments Of evidence
ab. the and absyrdty Of wing them 70 b.
ss,n o0Ddsrsi0u a AL hey evidently thought Tho
ss.se they fund existing u3sh, be c<u-d ssd toe
rq 1sm,Dt Of LORD Eot satisfied By the preliminary pts
which hey devised add r.qsir.d coalition ersedss, 70
fnf the boas la eydsLce SewJers~y sad 0oras spps
b. ne s.ssss 'ss; have initiated tbs example Of New
Yok Ia tocrtssn 81 the Stzes stnsr BY
r.ooEnon Of he Coe the oath Of the party r>qured in
eoVborsnoz Of Tie srs While in Eve Ct h- States bsss
not Allowed 20 ts giv.n 10 evidence q all Nelly az:
Hofmss Ala So De Camp 20, vsDd.goh Bseif m and
esses COLLECTED In note S Cowvn aud HPs Notes Phit %
Ey I'd, 81, and In note 70 G',enssfs ", all1)
But ne np4nt change recently made IN The Law o. IA
BY which party may testify the any other wtae.. Aas
osys.d the difficulty that supposed when Tia rio
above referred % named and there OCCASION nc
sorrf 20 ne books Be % refresh the pstys
DRY - 70 the i,ss In there failure reoo
ectos In lie Latter he books II they coutAn os
enfrsso tbs transAe,os you'd Sill sppeebend b. sv6es
within tAs rule recfnsed In Merrill ss Ithaca and Oswe "a
Rsa'oed Compsny w-nd SIS thu. the party who msds
the entries hss entirely forsoen The c,s which he reod. ba
can swear that be would not have entered b. had no
Known them the time N be and be3eves them q
4 b. witt Arxxv