Ingraham v. Bockius

• Decision Date: 31 March 1823
• Parties: INGRAHAM v. BOCKIUS and another.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

9 Serg. & Rawle 285

11 Am.Dec. 730

INGRAHAM v. BOCKIUS and another.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 31, 1823

IN ERROR.

If a servant, in the course of delivering out goods to customers make memoranda, and the same night, or next day, entries are made by the master, in books, from these memoranda, such books are books of original entries, and are admissible accompanied with the master's oath, as evidence to charge a customer.^[1]

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia county.

This suit was brought by Peter Bockius and Rudolph Bockius plaintiffs below, against Francis Ingraham, to recover the value of a certain quantity of meat, alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs.

On the trial, the plaintiffs produced John Vasey, a witness, who swore, " that he was employed by the plaintiffs, during the years 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, to do business as a butcher for them, according to the course of their business, that of butchers, which was to kill one day, and carry the meat round the next day to customers, who lived at some distance from the plaintiffs' residence. That the defendant was a customer, and took meat. That the said John Vasey kept memoranda with a pencil, for his own use, of the meat he sold, and of the persons he sold to; two books, in which the same were made, being produced, and part of another; but that the same were, in general, destroyed, those being the only memoranda to be found--and the same night, or the next day the same were entered in their books, and that he, Vasey stood by, and the same were called over twice, to see if they were correct." The plaintiffs then offered the entries in the plaintiffs' books (made from the said memoranda), as evidence of the sale and delivery of the meat to the defendant, the plaintiffs having previously sworn, that the books into which the memoranda were so as aforesaid copied, were their books of original entry, and the entries made in their handwriting. The defendant objected to the reading of the entries in the said last-mentioned books, contending that the same were not original entries, nor the said books, books of original entry, and prayed the court not to admit the same to be read, as evidence to the jury, to charge the defendant. The court, however, did permit the same to be read to the jury. The defendant then objected, that the said last-mentioned books and entries, were not evidence of the sale and delivery of goods to the defendant, and requested the court to charge the jury, that the same were not evidence of the sale and delivery of goods to the defendant; but the court charged the jury, that the same were evidence of the sale and delivery of goods by the plaintiffs to the defendant. To the admission of which said evidence and charge, the defendant excepted.

The plaintiff in error assigned the following errors:

1st. That the court below erred in permitting the plaintiffs to read as evidence to the jury, the entries in the books of the said plaintiffs, copied from the memoranda made by John Vasey.

2d. That the court below erred in charging the jury, that the said entries, so copied into the said books, were evidence of goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs.

Ingraham, for the plaintiff in error, contended:

1st. That the books of the plaintiffs, received in evidence by the court below, were erroneously admitted, to prove goods sold and delivered or labor done. The books of a plaintiff are admissible, when supported by the oath of the party keeping them; but original books of entry only fall within the rule. The book, in this case, was not a book of original entries but only a copy from the book of original entries, which consisted of the memoranda made by Vasey. They ought to have been produced, and were the only regular proof. In Ogden v. Miller's Executor, 1 Browne 147, entries on a slate, afterwards transferred to a book, were held not to be evidence of a tavern account. In Sterret v. Bull, 1 Binn. 235, this court say, that where clerks are employed, and the...