The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-05-05

3. Same-The testimony showed that the owner of the holster, which was rented for specific sum per day. made entries on a book kept for that pur- pose of the number of days the hoist CT worked each week, based on the report of his employe in charge of the holster. The employe in charge of the holster testified that he made true re- ports every Saturday to the owner who entered the same at once in the book Held, the entries were sufficiently cor roborated by independent evidence, to render them admissible.
 8. Same.-Entries regularly made by party in book kept for that pur- pose from data furnished by an em- ploye, where the employe testified that he knew of the correctness of the items and gave them correctly to the party entering them, and the party entering them testified that he entered the items as they were given to him, are admissible.
 s~ 1. Same.-The entries above referred to in headnotes 1, and were ad- missible against the objection that the entries were not made contemporan eously with the transaction, they be- ing made within reasonable time, un- der the circumstances.
 5. Same.-Under the contract, it be- ipS hph tHC CouIt t0 uctluo Whctpcf the holster, when the employe had steam up waiting for directions to use 1t. was in service within the contract tand If not other testimony might be introduced on which the jury could as- certain what should be deducted from the amount shown by the entries), en- tries made as set out fin the above headnotes, were admissible in evidence
 Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.
 A-I T. Browne.
 Reversed and remanded. Opinion by Simpson, J.
 Tyson. c. J., and Haralson and Dem son, JJ.. concur.
 PATT V. GERST.
 Action for Damages for Breach of Con-
 tract of Sale.-(Decided January
 24 1907. AZ So. Rep. 1001.)
 l. Frauds, statute of; contracts for sale of real estate; requisites.-To be without the statute of frauds, the writ ing constituting the contract for the sale of real estate must state the con- tract with such certainty that its es- sentials will be known from the mem orandum itself or by reference therein to some other writing without re- course to parol evidence.
 2. Same; evidence.-The contract re- lied on for the sale of real estate was sought to be evidenced by certain let ters and telegrams which did not de- scribe the property nor state the con- tents, telegram from the owner re- citing that he would sell the property for a certain sum cash and certain propositions made by his agents, rest ing in parol, and a deed drawn up at the instance of the owner describing the premises, but which was not de- livered and which showed that the par ties did not agree as to the terms of the .sale Held, not to show a sufficient compliance for a sale of real estate under the statute of frauds.
 8. Appeal; prejudicial error; exclu- sion of evidence.-It was not error to exclude the testimony offered by plain tiff where the same failed to make out q prima facie case for him under the pleading.
 Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court
 Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne Affirmed. Opinion by Simpson. J.
 Tyson. c. J., Haralson and Denson, JJ, concur.
 SAVAGE, EFT AL V. BRADLEY. Bill by Tenants in Common to Be Let
 in to Redeem.-(Decided February
 ', 1907. 43 So. Rep. 20.)
 l. Tenants in common; sale on fore closure; redemption by cotenants.-- While a co-tenant cannot, by redeem ing from a mortTage sale. invest him self with the absolute 1ndefeasible ti- tie to the joint property, the redemp- ton inuring 10 the benefit of all, yet the other co-tenants must within a reasonable time elect to contribute if they would reinstate their title.
 2. Same; 1aches of co.tenant.-Un- der ordinary circumstances, two years is a reasonable time for the exercise of the right of election to contribute and reinstate their title by co-tenant. where other co-tenants have redeemed from mortgage sale. therefore where the CO., tenant did not attempt to exercise this right for nearly ten years after the re- >demption by the other co-tenant, such laches lost them the right to elect
 3. Equity; dismissal of bill consid- eriug pleadings as amended.-The bill will not be taken as amended so as to allege that the complainants were in fants and not capable of electing to re- instate their title, as against the mo- ton to dismiss for want of equity, since to do so would permit of amendments of new and independent facts to those stated in the bill
 Appeal from Conecuh Chancery Court.
 Heard before Hon. W. l.. Parks.
 Reversed and rendered. Opinion by Mcclellan, J.
 Tyson. c. J., Dowdeil and Anderson. JJ., concur.
 CITY OF RFSSEMER V. DICKENS. Violation of City License Ordinance
 -Oecided February 6, 1907. 43
 So Rep. 21)
 Licenses; violation of; carrying on business.-Tn the absence of evidence showing that a sale was made, one can not be convicted for engaging in or carrying on a business to do which a license is required; mere preparations to engage in or carry on such business will not warrant conviction.
 Appeal from Bessemer City Court.
 Heard before Hon. William Jackson.
 Affirmed. Opinion by Mcclellan, J.
 Tyson, c. J., Dowdell and Anderson, JJ.. concur.
 HATFIELD. EFT AL vs. SCHOLAR Bill for Dissolution of Partnership
 and Other Purposes. (Decided
 Feb. 7th. 1907.--43 So. Rep. l2.
 Equity; pleadipg; defects; motion to dismiss; demurrer-Where some of. the ayerments of the bill give 1t equi- ty although the bill may be defective in the averments. the defects can not be reached by motion to dismiss for want of equity, must be pointed out by demurrer.
 Apneal from Jefferson Chancery