Morrison v. Whiteside

Le Grand, C. J., delivered -the opinion of this court. This suit was brought to recover a claim for work done and materials furnished by the appellee to the appellant. The action was brought on the llthof March 1859. The pleas are, son-indebtedness, payment, and limitations.

The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff to produce, at the trial of the case, the books or documents containing the ⁴⁵⁸ original entries of the account filed in the case, marked' a@= bill of particulars; also the books or documents containing-his account against James D. Morrison, from July 1st, 1851,-to January 1st, 1855, as also the books containing any other account against either James B. Morrison, or the defendant ■subsequent to that time, informing him that secondary evidence would be given of their contents. The plaintiff, to sustain his action, gave evidence by two» persons who were in the employment of the defendant as his. apprentices, the one from the year 1848 to 1853, the other from 1853 to the time of the trial, that at different times, between 1851 and 1S55, they had known the Morrisons, the defendant and his son James 0. Morrison, to order and obtain work, such as boots, shoes, &c., from the shop of the plaintiff, and that during the same time minor children and employees of the defendant had work also done in the shop of the plaintiff. It was also given in evidence, by a witness named Gorsom, that/about seven years prior to the trial, he being in the employ of the defendant, wishing to procure a. pair of boots, applied to the defendant for the money to enable him to purchase them, whereupon the defendant told’ him to go to his son James, who attended to his business; that-he did so, and received from James an order on (he plaintiff for the.boots, upon which order he procured them.

After this testimony, the plaintiff offered in evidence his-ledger. This book contained several accounts, some against the defendant and some against other persons. To the admissibility of this evidence the defendant’s counsel objected,but the court overruied'lhe objection, and allowed the book, with the accounts and entries, as set out in the record, to be-given in evidence, whereupon the defendant excepted. This-constitutes the defendant’s first exception.

The objection to the admissibility of the evidence being;; general, if any part of it was admissible, the court properly-overruled the objection. Budd vs. Brooke, 3 Gill, 220 . The rules of Howard county circuit court are not set out-in the record, and we are therefore compelled to look to then general doctrine as to the time within which notice to pro-, ⁴⁵⁹ ■¿luce an original paper must be given, and the effect of the production on the respective parties to the suit. The general rule is, that the party desiring the production of an original entry or paper, has the right to demand it at any time