Case Name: Taylor v. Dickey
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1807-01
Citations: 2 Brev. 131
Docket Number: 
Parties: Taylor v. Dickey.
Judges: All the judges present, (viz., Grimke, Waties, ®AY’ Trezevant, and Brevard,) except Wilds, J.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
JAN., 1807.
Taylor v. Dickey.
In an action for goods sold, the plaintiff’s book of original entries was produced in evidence, from which it appeared that the goods were delivered to one Wood; and Wood being produced as a witness, to prove that the goods, which were charged to the defendant, were received by him, (Wood,) on account of the defendant, and were applied to his (defendant’s) use, was admitted as competent; though objected to by the plaintiff, on the ground of interest.
Motion for a new trial. Assumpsit, tried in Georgetown District, before Bay, J. To prove the plaintiff’s'demand for goods, &c., sold and delivered as a retail merchant, one Crawley, a clerk of the plaintiff, proved the original entries in the plaintiff’s account book, and that the goods were delivered to one Woods, who applied for them on the defendant’s account. It appeared that this Woods had lately married the defendant’s daughter. The goods were charged to the defendant. The plaintiff then offered the same Woods as a witness, (and gave him a release, in order to remove every objection to his competency,) in order to prove tlfat the defendant had authorized him to apply for, and take up, the goods in question for the defendant’s use, and that they were in fact delivered to her. The defendant’s counsel objected to the admission of Woods’ testimony, on the ground of interest, as it would go to discharge himself; and on the ground of policy, as by allowing such testimony, frauds might be securely practiced. Bay, J., sustained the objection, and the jury found for the defendant.
Note. Vid. 1 Salk. 289. Plaintiff's sonhad a general authority from his father to receive and pay his father’s money. He received money as for his father, with an intent to embezzle it. The son was admitted a witness, to prove the delivery of the money.

Opinion:
^>er curiam.
All the judges present, (viz., Grimke, Waties, ®AY' Trezevant, and Brevard,) except Wilds, J.
The testimony was admissible. It ought to have been received, and its credibility left to the jury.
New trial granted.