Majority
p. 74Winants vs. Sherman.
Headnote
Books of account were proposed to be introduced as evidence for a specified purpose, with the express qualification that the adverse party should be prohibited from using them to prove other matters which they were equally competent to establish: Held, not receivable under these restrictions, but, if introduced, they must come in as evidence generally.Error to the New-York C. P. Sherman sued Winants in the court below for services performed. The cause was referred, and a report made in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment having been entered upon the report, the defendant below sued out a writ of error. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
M. T. Reynolds, for the plaintiff in error.
J. Holmes, for the defendant in error.
The only point made for reversal is, that the defendant below- offered his books of account in evidence in order to establish certain matters which he mentioned, under the qualification that they should not be received to prove other matters, to show- which, for aught that appears, they were equally competent. The referees decided^ in effect,
p. 75
that they could not be received under such a qualification, but must go for what they were worth as evidence generally. This was right, and the judgment must be affirmed. (Kelly v. Dutch Church of Schenectady, 2 Hill, 105 .)
Judgment affirmed.