
    John Slade against Isaac Teasdale.
    
    
      Charleston District,
    
    
      1798.
    
    Tradesmen’s bcoks good evidence to prove work ami labour, as a carpenter,to a jury, under a fair construction of the act of (he legislature, allowing merchants’ books lo be given in evidence to prove book accounts.
    The same point was determined in the case of Lamh v.Hart, at Columbia, in 1802. All the judges present.
    • ASSUMPSIT on a book account, for carpenter’s work.
    In support of the action to the j ury, the plaintiff offered his book of original entries, to prove his account for work and labour as a carpenter. An exception was taken to this book being given in evidence, on the ground that the act allowing merchants’ books to be given in evidence, to prove their open accounts, was a deviation from the rules-of the common law, and,- as such, should be construed strictly, and confined to merchants only, and not extended by construction. to any other class of men. But this was overruled by the presiding judge, who permitted the book to go to the jury as evidence of the work and labour, and they found for the plain tiff, the amount of his account.
    A motion was afterwards made for a new trial, on the same ground. But, it was resolved by all- the judges present, that as it had long been the practice of this court, even before the revolution, to permit tradesmen’s books under a fair construction of the act, to go to the jury, the judge who tried, the cause acted regularly, in permit: ing the books in the present case, to be sent to them as evidence of the plaintiff’s demand. They said, it had long been established as a rule, that all classes of men, who were obliged to keep books in the way of their trade, should be put upon the same footing. They saw no good reason, why a merchant should be peculiarly privileged, and tradesmen excluded from the like' benefit. The construction given, appeared to them to be a reasonable one;,- at all events it had been so • # long in use as a rule of evidence in our courts in this coun- . try, that they did not think themselves at liberty to depart r irom It.
    The rule for a new trial was therefore discharged.
    Present, Buhke, Giiimke and Bay.
    
      IV. B, Since the determination of the above cases in fa-vour of tradesmen’s books, the rulé has been circumscribed as to other classes of men. In Charleston, in 1807, in the case of Watson v. Bigelow, a scrivener’s book was determined not to be good evidence for services performed in that line, and for commissions, fkc. Also in the case of. Geter v. Martin, at Columbia, in 'May, 1807, it was determined that a planter’s book was not within the act.
    Bat and Trezevant, contra.
   See these cases in their order. Post.  