Case Name: Jeter v. Martin
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-04
Citations: 2 Brev. 156
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jeter v. Martin.
Judges: Waties, Brevard, and Wilds, Justices.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1807.
Jeter v. Martin.
Books of account, of a farmer, or planter, not admissible in evidence.
Summary process, before Gkimke, J., in Edgefield district, March, 1806. Plaintiff, who was a planter, or farmer, offered to prove his demand, which was founded on an account charging various articles, viz., corn, beef, whiskey, &c., by his own oath, and his account book, containing the original charges of the several items in the account. The judge refused to admit the book in evidence, or allow the plaintiff to be sworn to prove his book.
The motion in this court was to reverse the decision of the District Court, and for a new trial, 26th April, 1806. And Dozier, in support of the motion, argued that all other persons, besides tradesmen or merchants, were intitled to give the books of account in evidence, swearing to the books themselves, if they have no clerks, to prove the delivery of such articles as it has been usual to charge on book and sell on credit. That this has been the uniform custom and practice of the courts of this country for a long time, and is a custom founded in convenience and justice, and is more over defensible upon the liberal construction of otir acts of assem* bly. That this court had sanctioned the practice by the determination in the case of Lamb v. Hart’s administrators, in April, 1802. See 1 vol. 105.
Curia advisare vult. April, 1806. Ditto November, 1806. Court being divided in opinion.

Opinion:
25th April, 1807.
Waties, J.,
delivered the resolution of a majority of the court,
Waties, Brevard, and Wilds, Justices.
That the books of account of a planter, or farmer, are not admissible in evidence to prove the delivery and sale of articles ; and that there is no law of this country which affords any ground for such a practice. That the law in favor of tradesmen and handicraftsmen ought not to be so construed as to extend its operation beyond the policy and necessity which gave birth to it. On the contrary, being a law innovating upon the principles of the common law, it ought to receive a cautious and strict .construction; and that it might be attended with very mischievous consequences to allow to be proved all sorts of articles to be sold and delivered by such evidence as this-
Grimke, J., of same opinion.
New trial refused.
Bay, and Trezevant, Justices, of a contrary opinion. A beneficial law, and ought to be liberally expounded. It has been uniformly extended to physicians and lawyers,- and why should it not be to all others. No greater danger to be apprehended from it, than if it be confined to tradesmen. The class of tradesmen not more honest than farmers.