Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc. v. Lackland

• Decision Date: 04 March 1889
• Citation: 10 S.W. 895
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MASONIC MUT. BEN. SOC. v. LACKLAND et al.

10 S.W. 895

MASONIC MUT. BEN. SOC. v. LACKLAND et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 4, 1889.

1. EVIDENCE — HEARSAY — RESULTS OF EXAMINATION OF ACCOUNTS.

Where evidence is the result of voluminous facts, or of the inspection of many books and papers, the inspection of which cannot conveniently take place in court, or where a witness has inspected the accounts of parties, though not allowed to give evidence of their particular contents, he will be allowed to speak of the general balance or result of such examination, and such statement is not hearsay.

2. TRIAL — OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE.

When the exhibit or tabulated statement, this being the result of the examination made by the witness, an accountant, from which witness testified as a memorandum, was offered in evidence, it was objected to as incompetent, etc. Held, that the objection was worthless, because not specific.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; W. H. HORNER, Judge.

Action by the Masonic Mutual Benefit Society against Rufus J. Lackland and George S. Drake, executors of Gerard B. Allen and others, on the bond of Luke, who was secretary of plaintiff association; Gerard B. Allen and Edwin Harrison being his sureties. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Krum & Jonas, for appellants. Boyle, Adams & McKeighan, A. C. Stewart, and S. B. Jones, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J.

Action on the bond of Luke, who was secretary of the association; Gerard B. Allen and Edwin Harrison being his sureties. By way of avoidance of the bond, the defendant sureties pleaded that prior to its execution Luke had been a defaulter to the association; that this fact was well known to the executive committee and the officers of plaintiff; but that such knowledge was not communicated to said defendants, and they were allowed to become bondsmen in ignorance of such material and damaging facts. Issue was joined on this plea, and the cause was referred to Alexander Martin to try all of the issues. After hearing the testimony, he made his report and finding in favor of the plaintiff. This report was confirmed by the circuit court, resulting in a judgment in plaintiff's favor, and the defendants have appealed to this court. About the fact of the defalcation upon which defendants were sought to be held liable there was no real contest. The evidence seems to fully sustain the finding of the referee that prior to the giving of the bond in suit there was no misconduct on the part of the principal in the bond, or...