Lamb v. Hart 2 Bay 362, 2 S.C.L. 362

Lamb against Hart.

Columbia,

1802.

Mechanics* and trades* men’s hooks arc good evidence to prove theiraccounis, am! should be put upon the same footing as the books of shopkeepers, &c.

The same point was determined in Slade^Tcas-'Charleston m ante, p. 172.

CASE from Camden. Motion to set aside a nonsuit.

This action was assumpsit for work and labour, fkc. Ia order to substantiate the demand of the plaintiff, who was a mechanic, he offered his book of original entries in evidence, and there being no other proof, he relied on those entries as sufficient proof of his demand. The defendant’s counsel objected to the plaintiff’s book of entries, inasmuch as the plaintiff was not a shopkeeper or merchant; that the act allowing even merchants’ and shopkeepers’ books as evidence was in derogation of the common law, and therefore ought to be strictly construed, and the principle should not be carried beyond the letter of the law.

The presiding judge (Grimice) was of this opinion also, and ordered the plaintiff to be nonsuited.

This was a motion to set aside this nonsuit, and to have the cause reinstated on the docket for trial at the next circuit court at Camden. "When, after hearing counsel, it was determined by the court, that as it had been the practice du- . ring a long'course of years past for the courts of justice in this state, under the equitable construction of the act, to put mechanics and all kinds of tradesmen on the same footing as shopkeepers, and to admit their books of entries as , ,. , , . , . evidence to prove accounts, they did not think it proper to alter the rules of evidence, which had been so long established, but considered it, from long use, as part of the law Gf the land.