Year: 1872

Before ALLEN, c. J.. HAKTwEIL and WIDE
MANN, J.J.


JOHN Montgomery rs. J. c. PJ7gg@-BH Of


EXCEPTIONS


This was an action Of contract TO recover
S47.l4, for hay sold and delivered to the defend
ant The plaintiff offered in evidence his bill
rendered with the following endorsement thereon
by the defendant, viz "J. Montgomery, Esq
Dear Sr-I am not aware that have ordered or
purchased any hay from you, costing over S4 per
week when l am supplied regularly from another
source at 81 so per week i was under the i'm
preston that you would send hay in exchange for
manure aud up to the moment Of receiving this
bill ] had no idea that was to pay for hay which
did not require and which had neither ordered
nor purchased If you will accept one half Of
the amount of the bill, viz S22.25, you are vel
come to it.


Yours very respectfully, J. c. PFLUGER"


This evidence was admitted as tending to show
that some hay was delivered by the plaintiff to
The defendant within the alleged dates, although
not tending to show the accuracy of the charges !
to which admission exception was taken and
allowed.


The evidence was that the plaintiff is an
attorney at law and Police Justice, that he sells
hay, keeping no clerk and entering in day-book
the names Of the persons TO whom he delivers
hay, with date and amount The entries are
loosely made, the account against the defendant
appearing on the last iy-leaf and entries at sub
sequent dates, against other persons, appearing
in earlier pages Of the book. The plaintiffs
servant testified that he had taken hay to the
defendant from the plaintiff between March and
June, within which months the charges were
made. but that be could not give the exact dates !;
that the plaintiff weighed the hay and entered the
amount in the book aforesaid that the defendants
groom had once come to ask for the hay. Under
this evidence, the book was admitted with the
plaintiff suppletory oath, and exception to its
admission was taken and allowed.


The defendants counsel also excepted to the
finding Of the Court that "hay was delivered
70 the defendant by the plaintiff at the alleged
dates. The defendants groom had testified that
be did not 50 to the plaintiff for hay that the de-
PENDANTS servant always took away manure when
be brought hay, that both the plaintiff and the
defendant had told him that the servant was 10
take away manure whenever he brought hay
The servant however testified that he continued
to deliver hay after the defendants wife and
groom had told him 10 take no more manure
This exception was allowed. Exceptions were
also taken aud allowed TO the findings of the
Court that hay was delivered by the plaintiff
when if delivered at all, it was by the plaintiffs
servant, and to the failure Of the Court expressly
70 find that the defendant did not personally order
hay, and that be was otherwise supplied with hay.


f. Preston for Pltf.


r h Stanley and w. C. Jones for Deft.


OPINION OF THE COURT: The defendants en-
dOrsemeut on the plaintiffs bill denies the agree
ment, but tends TO show the receipt of hay, and
was therefore correctly admitted


The plaintiffs book of original entries was
properly admitted, considering the small amount
Of the claim, that he had no clerk, that delivery
Of some hay was otherwise shown, aud that the