Case Name: Robinson-Lloyds, Ltd., Appellee, v. Department of Liquor Control of the State of Ohio, Appellant
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1952-01-24
Citations: 91 Ohio App. 521
Docket Number: No. 4608
Parties: Robinson-Lloyds, Ltd., Appellee, v. Department of Liquor Control of the State of Ohio, Appellant.
Judges: Hornbeck, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 91
Pages: 521–523

Head Matter:
Robinson-Lloyds, Ltd., Appellee, v. Department of Liquor Control of the State of Ohio, Appellant.
(No. 4608
Decided January 24, 1952.)
Mr. Albert Spievack and Mr. Sol Goodman, for appellee.
Mr. G. William O’Neill, attorney general, Mr. Thomas R. Lloyd and Mr. Brown W. Pettit, for appellant.

Opinion:
Wiseman, J.
This is an appeal on questions of law from the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, which court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action to recover money withheld by defendant to cover breakage on liquor purchased, which was shipped and delivered to defendant's warehouse.
The two errors assigned are that the court improperly excluded evidence offered by defendant.
Business records of the Department of Liquor Control compiled by an accountant at the department office in Columbus from information furnished by agents in the different liquor stores throughout the state covering a period of years, which purported to state the extent of damage to shipments of liquor when received at the state warehouse and which show only date and amount claimed, where the witness does not have personal knowledge of the facts, are not admissible under Section 12102-23, General Code, unless, "in the opinion of the court, the sources of informa tion, method and time of preparation were snch as to justify" their admission. Such record's were properly excluded under Section 12102-23, General Code, as construed in Schmitt v. Doehler Die Casting Co., 143 Ohio St., 421, 55 N. E. (2d), 644; Weiss v. Weiss, 147 Ohio St., 416, 72 N. E. (2d), 245, 169 A. L. R., 668; Green v. City of Cleveland, 150 Ohio St., 441, 83 N. E. (2d), 63; Zeigler Milling Co. v. Denman, 79 Ohio App., 250, 72 N. E. (2d), 686; Eikenberry v. McFall, 33 Ohio Law Abs., 525, 36 N. E. (2d), 27.
Carbon copies of letters sent by defendant to plaintiff which contain self-serving declarations are inadmissible. Zeigler Milling Co. v. Denman, supra; Dickson, an Infant, v. Gastl, 64 Ohio App., 346, 28 N. E. (2d), 688; 17 Ohio Jurisprudence, 304, Section 237.
Judgment affirmed.
Hornbeck, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.