Case Name: J. M. Venning v. Hacker & Smiezer
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1835-03
Citations: 2 Hill 584
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. M. Venning v. Hacker & Smiezer.
Judges: O’Neall and Harper, Js. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
J. M. Venning v. Hacker & Smiezer.
Before the Recorder, in the City Court of Charleston, November Term, 1834.
triesheIintho the piaintiiFs book, cdYn eviamco, «•ere in part ^ ^ mornnda taken ht1israj[1 livery of the ar[y'ivóm’memo-¡j“dad^¿al?y themselves?— few, that the en-admissible in ev-““pióiSíffwS not a competent t0 pr0T0
Assumpsit for dumber sold to the defendants: — The Recorder granted a nonsuit, which the plaintiff now moved to set as^e. The question made, and the facts connected with it, appear in the following opinion of the Court.
Buist, for the motion.
Seymour, contra.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
There is no foundation for this motion, the book entries made by the plaintiff, are from convenience and necessity admitted in evidence, as memoranda- made at the time of the delivery, quantity and value of the articles, and necessarily presupposes that they were delivered by him, or in his presence. The proof here, is, that the entries were in part made from memoranda, made by his slave, of the delivery of the articles, and partly from memoranda made by the defendants themselved. In the first case, the truth of the fact rests upon the representation of the slave, and is therefore inadmissible. In the second, it consists of the declarations or admissions of the defendants, which, according to Darby v. Deas, 1 N. & M'C. 436, the plaintiff himself was incompetent to prove. The principle on which a party is admitted to prove his own entries does not apply to either. T o the extent that he delivered the articles himself, the plaintiff' would have been entitled to recover, but he was unable to distinguish them from the others. It was impossible, therefore, to ascertain the amount, and it would have been useless to have submitted that matter to a jury. The pon suit was properly ordered..
Motion dismissed.
O'Neall and Harper, Js. concurred.