Case Name: Ann Sanders against William Leigh
Court: General Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1789-05
Citations: 2 Md. 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ann Sanders against William Leigh.
Judges: 
Reporter: Maryland reports, being a series of the most important law cases argued and determined in the Provincial Court and Court of Appeals of the then province of Maryland, from the year 1700 [i.e. 1658] down to the [end of 1799]
Volume: 2
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
GENERAL COURT,
MAY TERM, 1789.
Ann Sanders against William Leigh.
THIS was an appeal from Charles County Court.
The defendant’s counsel prayed the Court below to direct the jury, that if they found any article in the account falsified, that then no part of the account was evidence. The Court refused to give the directions prayed for, whereupon a bill of exceptions was taken.
The appellant’s counsel contended that no part of the account was evidence, on the construction of the act of 1729, c. 20. s. 9.
The appellee’s counsel contended that before the whole account could be rejected as evidence, it must appear that there was a corrupt falsification of the account.

Opinion:
The Court.
If an action be brought on an account proved by the creditor according to the act of 1729, c. 20. s. 9. and the defendant on the trial shall prove, by lawful, indifferent testimony, that any article of the money, goods or labour, was never lent, sold or done, or that he has been charged for more than was expressly agreed, the jury ought to be directed to pay no regard to the probate, the plaintiff having been guilty of corrupt swearing.
2dly. But if all the articles of an account were really lent, sold or done, and the defendant on the trial prove by lawful, indifferent testimony, that the price of any of the articles lent, sold or done, was too high, in cases where there was no agreement as to price, or if the defendant prove that part of the sum charged as due has been paid, or in any manner satisfied, the probate shall, notwithstanding, he considered as evidence in the cause.
3dly. That as the direction prayed for by the counsel is general, and does not refer to corrupt swearing of the plaintiff, the said direction ought not to have been given; and the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed.