Case: Vance, surviving partner, versus Fairis
Abbreviation: Vance v. Fairis
Decision Date: 1794-01
Docket Number: 
Citation: 2 Dall. 217
Volume: 2
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Parties: Vance, surviving partner, versus Fairis.
Judges: 
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
January Term, 1794.
Vance, surviving partner, versus Fairis.
ON the trial of this cause, the plaintiff who was surviving partner of a Commercial House established in Dominica, offered, in evidence, a copy of entries in original books of the Company, sworn to be truly transcribed. The witness-premised, however, that the dates would, by no means, ascertain the exact period at which the transactions arose between the parties, as the entries were not made in the Waite-Book for months afterwards, The defendant’s Counsel, thereupon objected to the admission of the evidence.
The Counsel for the plaintiff stated, that their clients had, in fact, been engaged, during the late war, in an illicit trade with America, and that the defendant was their agent; that, therefore, it had been necessary to give a color to their transactions, and that they had not dared to make many of the entries at the time the facts occurred; But, it was contended; that as the declaration of the witness did not go to all the items; as he does not specify any that are exceptionable, and as some are unquestionably proper to be said before the Jury, the objection to the evidence can only apply to its credibility, and not to its competency.

Opinion:
By the Court ;
—It does not even appear, that the Clerk, who made the entries, was in the service, of the plaintiff at thtime the transactions took place; nor does any witness substantiate the transactions themselves upon oath. We are always inclined to be, liberal its the admission of evidence upon commercial controversies; but to establish a book, or the copies of entries in a book, kept under Rich circumstances, would be giving too great a latitude for deception, and, if drawn into precedent might prove a pernicious innovation upon the rules of law. The evidence cannot, therefore, be received.