Court Opinion

ID: 9558189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:04:04.713229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:27.694323
License: Public Domain

ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
TAYLOR, Justice.
By petition for rehearing the parties have asked the court to pass upon the merits of defendant’s assignments of error nos. 3 and 4. These assignments are insufficient to raise an issue. However, in view of I.C. § 1-205, we append the following for the guidance of the trial court.
In arguing these assignments of error, defendant contends books of account show*529ing the amount of cash advanced to him should not have been admitted in evidence. In support of this proposition the following is quoted from 84 A.L.R. 147, 148 (1933):
“In the absence of any statute expressly providing otherwise, it is usually held that books of account are inadmissible to show the payment or loan of money, on the ground that as the person paying or loaning money has it in his power to perpetuate evidence of that fact by taking a receipt or note, the reason for admitting a party’s books of account as evidence in his own favor does not exist.”
Not all jurisdictions concur in this reasoning. See Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. V, § 1539. The cases relied upon to support the annotator’s conclusion in 84 A.L.R., supra, were not decided under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, which was adopted by our state in 1939. I.C. §§ 9-413, 9-414, 9-415, 9-416.
“The term ‘business’ shall include every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling or operation of institutions, whether carried on for profit or not.” I.C. §9-413.
“A record of an act, condition or event, shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to the identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.” I.C. § 9-414.
We have consistently declared that in enacting the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, the legislature “intended to broaden the scope of admissibility of records made in the regular course of business.” John Scowcroft & Sons Co. v. Roselle, 77 Idaho 142, 145, 289 P.2d 621; Cassella v. Tiberio, 150 Ohio St. 27, 80 N. E.2d 426, 5 A.L.R.2d 1.
In Mahoney v. Minsky, 39 N.J. 208, 188 A.2d 161 (1963), the plaintiff objected to the admission of books of account on the ground that under New Jersey decisions, payment of a loan cannot be proved by the debtor’s books, even if kept in the regular course of business. The New Jersey court found plaintiff’s assertion could no longer be accepted in light of the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act. The court stated:
“The basic theory of the uniform law is that records which are properly shown to have been kept as required normally possess a circumstantial prob*530ability of trustworthiness, and therefore ought to be received in evidence unless the trial court after examining them and hearing the manner of their preparation explained, entertains serious doubt as to whether they are dependable or worthy of confidence. The last clause of the statute that the books should be accepted 'if, in the opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission,’ confers considerable discretion upon the trial .judge.” 188 A.2d at 166.
“ * * * if the criteria for admissibility have been met, it should make no difference whether the entries in issue relate to loans or their payment.
* * * Nor should competency turn on whether, in the context of the case, they are self-serving or admissions against interest. Such matters affect probative value or credibility and are for the fact finders.” 188 A.2d at 167.
We conclude the books of account which show sums of cash advanced to the defendant were properly admitted into evidence.
Rehearing denied.
KNUDSON, C. J., and McQUADE, Mc-FADDEN and SMITH, JJ., concur.