Court Opinion

ID: 6413320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:54:18.831982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:26.841625
License: Public Domain

Metcalf, J.
Upon inspecting the defendant’s book, it is clear that the judge correctly ruled that it was not competent evidence of payments made to the plaintiff. It was a mere cash book. At the head of the left hand leaves was written, throughout the book, “ By cash received,” and at the head of the right hand leaves, “ To cash paid,” or on the left, “ Cash *116received in,” and on the right, “ Cash paid out.” Such is not a book of accounts or charges that was ever held admissible, in this commonwealth, even in proof of a claim made by a plaintiff. And though we do not doubt that a defendant’s books are admissible in evidence, when offered to prove a set-off against a plaintiff’s claim, yet it can be only such a book as the plaintiff may introduce in support of his claim.
But if the defendant’s book had been, generally, such a book of accounts or charges as is admissible, yet the particular charges therein of payments made to the plaintiff would not have been competent evidence. No book kept by a party ever was legal evidence, in this commonwealth, of payment of money made by him. Exceptions overruled.