Daily Kennebec journal., 1906-03-03
LAW COURT DECISION.
Motion Overruled in Case OF Putnam
VS.. Richards Paper Co.

Putnam VS.. Grant, ct al-lseScTipt ny
Whitehouse, j.
In an action to recover Daialce vi
S41S due on a quantity of logs IL ap-
pcarcd that the plaintiff putnam au-
thorizcd the defendants to pay 10 the
Richards Paper Co. on his account
any sum which might be found due
from him to that company, Tor an al
legged overpayment by the latter 1of
logs purchased by it of Putnam.
The defendants had essentially the
same burden that the Paper co. Wouid
have had in a suit brought against
Putnam in it's own name, to recover
the amount of this alleged overpay-
ment for logs purchased of him.
The scale bills for each lot Delivered
wer" duly received and retained by tne
Paper Co. and written statement
purporting to show the number OF feel
i'll each lot of logs received according
to the scale bills. the price per thou
| sand. computation of the total value
| and the amount credited TO him was
| sent to Putnam at the end of each
month. Lettcr-press copies of all these
monthly statements of the items ana
| details of the credits were made on a
| book called an invoice book, which was
kept in the custody Of the Paper Co.
| Duo notice had been given to Put
nam to produce these original monthly
| statements, to be used as evidence Ill
| the ease, but they We're not produced;
and although no evidence was offered
| showing that cithnr the original scale
bills received by the Paper 90. or the
| invoice book containing lcttcr-prcsS
| copies of the monthly statements had
| been lost or destroyed. neither the in
| voice book nor the original scale bills
| We're produced in evidence BY the de-
| fcnGants. nor any explanation given Of
| their reproduction. But in lieu
| thereof the defendants offered the Pa
| per Cos. account book called a Jour
| nal" authenticated by the testimony
| Of the bookkeeper who kept it, con-
| containing on the debit side of this
| transa ction a record of 10 notes sent
| to Putnam between March "a and June
| 90 aggregatng $500 and on the other
| side a summary of credits amounting
| to s5324.
These entries do not purrort to item
| ize the transactions to which they re-
| late. but in connection with them an
| express reference is made to "invoice
| book, page 81 and 3S.'' The bookkeeper
also testified that the 'scale bills and
receipts were the sources from which
ne obtained the items constituting the
Jumped sums" credited in the journal.
The situation is clearly distinguishable
from the common instances where en-
tries have been conied into journal
from & slate or slips Of paper or other
temporary records which have been
| obliteratcd or destroyed. In such
case The journal may be admitted as
| original evidence. "The first regular
ana collected record is the original
one, and il is imma terial that it was
made up from casual or scattered
memoranda preceding it." In the case
at bar the entries in the journal do not
purport to be copies of original slips
or memoranda; they simply claim to
record the results of the several COM
putations made by the bookkeeper
from figures afforded by the scale
bills and receipts" Furthermore so
far as appears these original papers
are still in existence.
The notes given by the Paper GO. to
| Putnam had been destroyed and the
record OF them in the journal was OBJ
| viuusly admissible to refresh the book
keepers recollection in regard to the
dates and amounts Of the several
notes. 50, too. if the Journal had been
| offered by Putnam as evidence against
the Paper Co, the entries OF Jumped
sums credited to Putnam would have
been competent as admissions on the
part Of the Paper Co that logs of the
value credited had been received from
Putnam. But when offered by the de-
PENDANTS in favor of the Paper Co. to
prove that no more than the amounts
credited had been received from Put
nam. the entries of these Jumped sums
credited to him We're not admissible as
independent evidence. They could not
be deemed original evidence for the
reasons above stated. They could not
he received as secondary evidence be-
| cause the cXtrinsic evidence as well as
til nature of the entries themselves
satisfactorily disclosed the existence Of
primary and better evidence.
| But assuming that the journal was
| admitted for the purpose of enabling
the bookkcepcr to refresh his rcCollcc-
ton as a witness in regard 10 the cred
| its as well as in regard to the notes, il
does not appear what Instructions if
| any. We're given to the jury respecting
| the usefulness of the entries as such
memoranda. 1t is the opinion of the
court, however. that in Wow OF the eX-
istcnce Of the scale bills as primary
| evidence. and of the invoice book which
was available as secondary evidence
after notice to produce the original
monthly statements. the jury are not
chargable with manifest error in
reaching the conclusion that the evil
dencc before them was not sufficient to
warrant finding that the plaintiff
Putnam was indebted to the Richards
Paper Co, on account of the alleged
ovcrpayment, at the time of the trans
| action in question.
| The entry n1ySt thaTnfOra no