American Locomotive Co. v. Hamblen
| Decision Date | 20 May 1914 |
| Citation | 105 N.E. 371,217 Mass. 513 |
| Parties | AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVE CO. v. HAMBLEN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
R. G. Dodge, of Boston, and
F. W. Johnson, of Claremont, N. H., for plaintiff.
Tyler Corneau & Eames, W. H. Garland, and A. L. Jackson, all of Boston, for defendant.
The question presented on this record is one of evidence. This is an action to recover for work done and materials furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant between October, 1911, and August, 1912. To prove its case the plaintiff offered its book accounts, together with testimony to the effect that it kept a large repair shop where workmen and mechanics were employed. Each employé noted on cards the time devoted by him to each particular job, and on separate cards the hour when he began and stopped work for the day. Thus, at the close of each day one card indicated the number of hours of work, from which the workman's wages were determined, and other cards data from which charges were made of labor furnished to the customers. These two sets of timecards served as a check upon errors in each, and at the end of three months were destroyed. The entries charged to the customers' accounts were made by bookkeepers, who had no personal knowledge respecting their correctness; but all entries both upon the books and time-cards were made in good faith in the regular course of business and before the commencement of the action. The plaintiff did not call as witnesses any of those who performed any of the work here in question, although it appeared that some of them were still in its employ and others in the country. After showing the method of bookkeeping, the plaintiff, on April 10, 1913, offered the books into which were copied the items from the original cards, and rested its case on April 11th. Against the objection of the defendant the books were admitted by the auditor in the exercise of his discretion, provisionally with leave to the defendant to move later to have them excluded. The evidence was closed on May 26, 1913, at which time the defendant moved that the evidence as to the book accounts be excluded. But the auditor, in view of all the circumstances and St. 1913, c. 288, which took effect on April 11, 1913, did not exclude them.
The defendant contends that the correctness of this ruling should be determined as of April 10th, when the books were offered. But this position is untenable. The evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial