Opinion ID: 2408739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the testimony of william s. durham

Text: Appellant Stevens contends that the testimony of William S. Durham was incompetent. Durham testified that he  serves as a supervisor for Chrysler Corporation and his duties included the supervisions of entries of dealers' orders and posting the dealer record page when the order is shipped. The original invoices of the company are printed on a data processing machine. According to the witness, there was no means for learning the identity of the personnel making the original entry upon the records. The records were used in the regular course of business of the corporation. In these circumstances we think it is plain that the evidence of the witness was competent. The authorities cited for appellant on this point recognize that evidence of this type is admissible if sufficient reason is shown why the person who made the original entries is unavailable. See Baskett, Nichols & Norment v. Rudy, 186 Ky. 208, 217 S.W. 112; In re Independent Distillers of Ky., D.C., 34 F.Supp. 724; and Edwards v. Whitley City Sales, Inc., Ky., 246 S.W.2d 1018.