صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

number of feet of logs placed by him in the water: Tingley v. Fair. haven Land Co., 9 Wash. 34, 36 Pac. 1098. A book kept by a surveyor of lumber in which he entered the names of the buyer and seller of lumber which he surveyed has been held admissible, with his suppletory oath, in a suit by himself against the buyer for his fees on the ground that it is a book of accounts: Witherell v. Swan, 32 Me. 247.

A report of an expert packer that he had processed and boxed a certain quantity of prunes of various grades is not admissible to show the value of the prunes where it does not show how many boxes of each grade were packed, and was not offered in connection with the testimony of the packer: Peterson v. Mineral King Fruit Co., 140 Cal. 624, 74 Pac. 162.

d. Note Registers Check-books, Inventories and the Like.-A note register or book of bills receivable is not a book of account, and for that reason its admissibility has been denied. Its use as a memorandum has, however, been recognized: Karsing v. Walter (Iowa), 65 N. W. 832; Martin v. Scott, 12 Neb. 42, 10 N. W. 532; Laboree v. Klosterman, 33 Neb. 150, 49 N. W. 1102. So, also, a teller's book of a bank has been allowed in evidence to show that on a certain day no money was received for certificates of deposit, where it is shown in connection with said book that in the regular course of business such money, if received, would have been entered in the book: American Surety Co. v. Pauly, 72 Fed. 470, 18 C. C. A. 644. Records of a cash register offered to show that no sales of liquor to a certain amount were made on a certain day are not admissible, since they are not books of account, but, memoranda made by a party in his own interest: Cullinan v. Mancrief, 90 App. Div. 538, 85 N. Y. Supp. 745. Books of the stock exchange in which are recorded the sales of stock at the exchange are not admissible as original evidence against third persons of the facts stated therein, when the person who made the entries in such books is alive and might be but is not called to testify to the transaction: Terry v. Birmingham Nat. Bank, 93 Ala. 599, 30 Am. St. Rep. 87, 9 South. 299. Hotel registers are not admissible to prove the extent of business of a hotel, since they do not afford proof of the actual number of guests or whether they were paying customers or the duration of their stay: Wittenberg v. Mollyneaux, 55 Neb. 429, 75 N. W. 835. Where there is no proof that entries on the stub of a promissory note-book were made in the usual course of business and contemporaneous with the transaction to which they relate, they are not admissible under a statute which admits entries so made, nor are they admissible as entries in a book of accounts: Kelly v. Crawford, 112 Wis. 368, 88 N. W. 296.

The stub of a check is not admissible as a book of accounts, and regarded merely as entries made in the usual course of business they have been denied admissibility on the ground that the rule in favor of such admissibility has relation to entries made by an agent and not by a principal: Carter v. Fischer, 127 Ala. 52, 28 South. 376; Watts v. Shewell, 31 Ohio St. 331; contra; Fulkerson v. Long, 63 Mo. App. 268. In Simons v. Steele, 82 App. Div. 202, 81 N. Y. Supp. 737, affirmed in 177 N. Y. 542, 69 N. E. 1131, the court said: “It is conceded that the

stub entries in the check-books were not admissible in evidence to show cash transactions, if they are to be treated as books of account. Such is the effect of the decisions: Vosburgh v. Thayer, 12 Johns. 461; Smit v. Rentz, 131 N. Y. 169, 30 N. E. 54, 15 L. R. A. 138. The plaintiff claims, while admitting this rule, that they were admissible as a part of the res gestae, and as constituting the best evidence procurable. If admissible for the purpose of showing that the parties had transactions, and for nothing else, they would be insufficient to establish an indebtedness, and resort could not be had to them for that purpose. Consequently, if admissible to this limited extent, the plaintiff would not be aided, because they did not establish the indebtedness, and were not competent for such purpose. It can scarcely be claimed with any show of reason that because no other evidence was procurable, therefore they may be resorted to to establish an indebtedness. Lack of evidence may be the plaintiff's misfortune, but it does not avail as a basis upon which to found a claim. That must be proved by competent testimony.”

Where several persons co-operate in making an inventory of a stock of goods, the inventory is not admissible in evidence, as a memorandum in connection with the testimony of any one of them unless he can verify it in its entirety as representing his knowledge on the subject: Whitley Grocery Co. v. Roach, 115 Ga. 918, 42 S. E. 282. In such a case, the memorandum relates to matters to which the maker of the memorandum cannot testify because of his want of personal knowledge: Town of Norwalk v. Ireland, 68 Conn. 1, 35 Atl. 804. But in Burchwell v. Koon, 8 Colo. App. 463, 46 Pac. 932, the court in allowing an inventory to be admitted in evidence said: “There is no other method by which a stock can be taken, and by which parties can testify and intelligently lay before the jury a discription of the goods, of the amounts, and of the values. Few men can retain in their memory, and state, item by item, a stock of goods which they have examined, even though the purpose of the examination was to ascertain the value of it."

After one has testified to this result of his examination as to the existence of deeds, mortgages and other liens, a list of such documents compiled by him from the records of the register of deeds is not admissible: Plano Mfg. Co. v. McCoid (Iowa), 80 N. W. 659. Tabulated statements made by competent persons from voluminous and complicated records which are in evidence are not substantive evidence tending to show the facts stated therein, but are admissible to assist in the understanding of the records: State v. Brady, 100 Iowa, 191, 62 Am. St. Rep. 560, 69 N. W. 290, 36 L. R. A. 393. But a sheet of paper containing an itemized account of expenditures adopted by an employer in making a settlement with his copartners is admissible in an action by a clerk for his wages to show the rate of wages he was drawing: Story v. De Armond, 179 Ill. 510, 53 N. E. 990. IV. Admissibility of Books Containing Memoranda of Daily Trans

actions and Doings. Entries in a diary are not admissible to show the amount and nature of services reudered by a deceased lawyer in an action for his

services since the entries must be regarded as self serving declarations: Burke v. Baker, 188 N. Y. 561, 80 N. E. 1033. So, also, separate sheets of paper called "blotter sheets," on which were entries in the nature of diary entries showing acts of the parties are not admissible as testimony, but may be used for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of a witness: Luidenthal v. Hatch, 61 N. J. L. 29, 39 Atl. 662. And where it is sought to be shown that a certain deed was forged, diary entries of the grantor showing that he was not at the place where the deed purported to be signed and acknowledged were held not admissible where it was not shown that the diary was in his possession at the place or on the day that the entry purported to have been written, the court saying: “We have searched in vain for the rule of evidence which renders admissible the statements as contained in the diary of Vi cent Hamilton. Suppose he had made th statements to a third party, and this third party was offered as a witness to prove his statement, would it be contended seriously that this testi. mony would be competent? This diary does not belong to that class of documentary evidence which is admissible. It is not in the nature of a book account, which upon showing that it was correctly kept would render it admissible. It is merely a statement purporting to be made by Hamilton, and is of no more force or effect than if he had made such statements to some witness the day before he died. Again, it is inadmissible because it falls within that class of testimony denominated self-serving statements”: Elliott v. Sheppard, 179 Mo. 382, 78 S. W. 627. Hence a diary in which are noted the transactions of the day is regarded as a mere memorandum, and admissible only to the extent that such entries of that class are admissible. An ordinary diary is not regarded as an account-book and admissible as such: Cos. tello v. Crowell, 139 Mass. 588, 2 N. E. 698. But where the entries in a diary are of such a nature that the book may be classed as a book of accounts, the diary will be admissible as a book of accounts: Remick v. Rumery, 69 N. H. 601, 45 Atl. 574. V. Admissibility of Books and Reports Used as part of System of

Conducting Business. In General.-A mere memorandum for convenience, which discloses no purpose to charge or bind anyone may be resorted to for the purpose of aiding the memory of a witness but not as proof of a disputed fact: Cairns v. Hunt, 78 Il. App. 420. Field-books used in min. ing operations showing the levels, slopes, drifts and other places in which work was done, the character of the work and the amount of powder, fuse and the like used in doing the work. Which books were made up by shift bosses, but not claimed to be strictly accurate, and merely kept for the convenience of the company in the management of its business, are not competent evidence as to isolated and collateral facts in a suit between the corporation and a stranger: Eureka Hill Min. Co. v. Bullion etc. Min. Co., 32 Utah, 236, ante, p. 835, 90 Pac. 157. A statement of a customer's account with a bank is not admissible against the customer where only evidence of its correctness is that of bank's cashier who made it from bank's books, which were

a.

not kept by him: Walling v. Morgan County, 126 Ala. 326, 28 South. 433. The note-book of a deceased surveyor showing certain levels and other figures in a survey made for the purpose of a drainage scheme and used by him in making his report on the matter is admissible to show line to which the bi-monthly spring tide flowed at that time, since the entries were made in the discharge of professional duty at or near the time when the work was done: Mellor v. Wolmesley, [1905] L. R. 2 Ch. 164. Evidence in the form of tables representing the average business of a railroad company is receivable in a suit to enjoin enforcement of a tariff made by railroad commissioners although covering only occasional or alternate months in the year, where it is also shown that those months are fairly representative of the whole year and the preparation of schedules for the entire period would curtail a very large amount of labor and expense: Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Keyes, 91 Fed. 47. Bills for material purchased by plaintiff, some items of which were used and others not, were held inadmissible in a suit on a contract, the court saying: "It would probably have been proper to permit the witness to refer, while testifying, and for the purpose of refreshing his recollection, to bill containing items which did not go into the building as well as those which did, but we are of opinion such bills could not properly go to the jury, containing, as they did, items used elsewhere and not in the work done by appel. lants": Schuellbacher v. Frank M. Loughlin Plumbing Co., 85 Ill. App. 158. Schedules which are a mere summarization of the results of an expert's examination of accounts are admissible subject to cross-examination as to the items comprising the schedules: San Pedro Lumber Co. v. Reynolds, 121 Cal. 74, 53 Pac. 410.

b. Books of Rules and Instructions Furnished to Employés.—Rules of a railroad company, prescribing the duties of its agents, and merely intended as private instructions to the company's employés, are not admissible in evidence on behalf of the company against a plaintiff not shown to have contracted with reference thereto nor shown to have had any knowledge thereof: Central R. R. etc. Co. v. Skellie, 90 Ga. 694, 16 S. E. 657. Such books of rules, however, are sometimes admitted in evidence against the railroad company as admissions: Lake Shore etc. R. Co. v. Ward, 135 Ill. 511, 26 N. E. 520; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Stith’s Admx., 27 Ky. Law Rep. 596, 85 S. W. 1173, 1 L. R. A., N. S., 1014.

C. Reports of Agents, Employés and Subordinate Officials. 1. In General.—The rule in respect to the admissibility of reports was stated by the court in New York v. Second Ave. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 572, 55 Am. Rep. 839, 7 N. E. 905, in admitting a time-book in evidence. The court said: “The case is of an account. Kept in the ordinary course of business, of laborers employed in the prosecution of work, based upon daily reports of foremen who had charge of the men, and who, in accordance with their duty, reported the time to another subordinate of the same common master, but of a higher grade, who, in time, also in accordance with his duty, entered the time as reported. We think entries so made, with the evidence of the foreman that they made true reports, and of the person who made the entries that he correctly entered them, are admissible. It is substantially by this method of accounts that the transactions of business in numerous cases are authenticated. and business could not be carried on and accounts kept, in many cases, without great inconvenience, unless this method of keeping and proving accounts is sanctioned. In a business where many laborers are employed, the accounts must, in most cases, of necessity, be kept by a person not cognizant of the facts, and from reports made by others. The person in charge of the laborers knows the fact, but he may not have the skill, or for other reasons it may be inconvenient that he should keep the account. It may be assumed that a system of accounts based upon substantially the same methods as the accounts in this case is in accordance with the usages of business. In admitting an account verified as was the account here, there is little danger of mistake, and the admissibility of such an account, as legal evidence is often necessary to prevent a failure of justice.

“We are of opinion, however, that it is a proper qualification of the rule admitting such evidence that the account must have been made in the ordinary course of business, and that it should not be extended so as to admit a mere private memorandum, not made in pursuance of any duty owing to the person making it, or when made upon information derived from another who made the communication casually and voluntarily, and not under the sanction of duty or other obligation.”

"Service marks" on an original telegram indicating that it was sent are admissible together with the testimony of the operator to show the sending and receiving of the message: St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. White Sewing Mach, Co., 78 Ark. 1, 93 S. W. 58. But the time card of a street-car conductor is not admissible to show the time when an accident occurred in a suit for personal injuries: Lucas v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 56 App. Div. 405, 67 N. Y. Supp. 833. A report made by an insurance agent to his company of his daily business is not admissible to support the agent's contention that they were without knowledge of the existence of other insurance covering the same property when they issued their policy of insurance: Strauss v. Phenix Ins. Co., 9 Colo. App. 386, 48 Pac. 822.

2. Train-sheets and Railway Inspection Reports.—Records of entries made in the usual course of business on “train-sheets” by a train dispatcher from reports telegraphed to him by station agents as to the time of the arrival and departure of trains are admissible in evidence to show the position and place of a train at a certain time: Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Daniel, 28 Ky. Law Rep. 1146, 91 S. W. 691, 3 L. R. A., N. S., 1190; Louisville etc. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 584, 94 S. W. 26; Donovan v. Boston etc. R. Co., 158 Mass. 450, 33 N. E. 583; Big River Lead Co. v. St. Louis etc. Co., 123 Mo. App. 394, 101 S. W. 636; Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 138 N. C. 42, 107 Am. St. Rep. 517, 50 S. E. 452.

.

« السابقةمتابعة »