Laurel Produce Growers Ass'n v. Gordy

Headnote

Evidence — Account Book Held Sufficiently Identified for Admission as an Admission Against Interest.

Account book held sufficiently identified as account book of defendant showing transactions with plaintiff, and, therefore, admissible against defendant as admission against interest, though neither proved by affidavit of plaintiff, under Rev. Code. 1915, § 4226, nor by bookkeeper who made entries.

Appeal from Justice of Peace,

W. B. Gordy, a witness, not defendant’s bookkeeper, was called by the plaintiff. He produced a book which he testified was the defendant’s book of original entry in its transactions with the plaintiff. He further testified that the defendant was engaged in the business of shipping produce on consignment and also in buying and selling the same; that he had been sales manager for said defendant until the month of November, in the year 1922; that as such sales manager it was his duty to superintend the loading of cars of produce shipped by the defendant, whether on consignment or otherwise; that the said defendant had shipped for the plaintiff certain produce on consignment, in the year 1922 and prior to November of that year; that when such cars were loaded by the defendant it was the duty of one of the men who did the loading to mark the amount of produce consigned by, or purchased from each person, as well as the name of such person and the number of the car in which such produce was loaded, on a card or slip of paper; that such cards or slips were delivered to the witness each night, and that it was his duty to deliver them the same night to the bookkeeper of the defendant; that the book

keeper than made up the defendant’s book of original entry, which was produced by him, from these cards or slips; that the witness was familiar with the handwriting of the defendant’s bookkeeper and that the book produced by him was in her handwriting. Such book was then offered in evidence by the plaintiff as the book of account of the defendant, showing its transactions with the plaintiff.

Richardson for the defendant objected to the admission of the book on the ground that it was neither proved by the affidavit of the plaintiff under the statutory rule (.Revised, Code 1915, § 4226), nor under the common-law rule by the bookkeeper who made the entries.

Tunnell for the plaintiff contended that the book of the opposite party to the ^ suit was admissible on the ground that it was an admission against interest, and that the rules with respect to the admission of the parties’ own books did not apply.