Opinion ID: 2195817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Plaintiff's Check Book

Text: Inasmuch as this matter will probably be tried again, we feel that another claimed erorr should be discussed briefly. The Plaintiff offered, and the Court admitted, over the Defendants' objections, what the Plaintiff called the journal book what I keep my records when I pay check to some people . . . . Each check when I write, and which the Defendants refer to as the Plaintiff's check stubs. In fact, the exhibit is recognizable as a portion of a type of check book which provides a page on which may be recorded the check number, date, name of payee and amount of the several checks drawn (together with the balance remaining on deposit)contrasting in form only with the familiar type of small book in which each check has a separate stub for the recording of such information. The book contained the entry: 5535/10 Petriw & Anastasia 200 = 275.14 [balance] The exhibit was offered as an original record to prove the payment of the $200.00 deposit. (The checkif one in fact was givenwas never presented for payment.) Defendants argue that this journal is not admissible under the common law shop-book rule or under 16 M. R.S.A. § 356, [5] and we agree. In construing that statute we have held that memoranda made for the convenience or purposes of the one who made them are not intended to be included under the exception. [6] Other than that the Plaintiff was a farmer who needed to keep some record of such of his expenditures as were made by check, little else was established to show the regularity, objectivity, and reliability upon which this exception is founded. It appears to us that the exhibit did not qualify for admission. The entry will be: Appeal sustained. Remanded to the Superior Court for retrial.