
    William M’Kewn ads. Mary Barksdale.
    A memorandum Boot, tept By the master workman of mechamos, written, some in ink, and some with a pencil, is not admissible, with his (defendant’s) oath to prove the loss of days’ work By plaintiff’s slave, who was hired to-the defendant ; though that might have Been the customary way of keeping such account. 
    
    This was an action commenced in the City Court .of Charleston, for the wages of a black bricklayer, the property of Mrs. Barksdale, and employed by the defendant.
    At the trial, the defendant produced a small memorandum Book, which contained an account of the days work of all the hands employed, and, among the rest, of the slave of Mrs. Barksdale. It also stated the lost time of each slave or hand hired by the day, as was the slave in question. And it noted the days when from circumstances, he was not employed. Thus, “ lost half a day,” or “quarter,” &c., giving the date. It was proved by a multitude of mechanics, that when slaves were hired by the day, they received larger wages than by the month; as $1 per day, and about $16 per month. But, that, for this extra compensation, they must actually labor during working hours. And if the weather was inclement, or if, from any cause, time was lost, it was deducted, in short, *that it was a contract for so many hours labor. This memo- q rand-urn was sometimes in pencil, and sometimes in ink ; and in the hand- L writing of the master workman ; and was the universal mode of proving lost time.
    The defendant contended, that he had a right to prove By this book, together with his own suppletory oath, that' a considerable sum ought to be deducted for time lost, during the period the bricklayer was employed, to wit., thirty-sis days, at $1 per day. But this evidence was rejected by the Court, as incompetent to establish the fact, that the negro had lost the several portions of days, making up in the whole, that sum. And the jury, accordingly, found a verdict for the plaintiff, without any deduction for lost time.
    His Honor, Mr. Justice Nott, supported the charge of the Recorder, from which an appeal was made, upon the grounds:
    1. Because the deductions for portions of days, where the mechanic is employed by the day, is reasonable and just.
    2. Because the mode of ascertaining the amount of time lost, (which was proved to be the universal practice among mechanics,) by a memorandum book such as the one offered in evidence, is the only practical one that can be devised, and is the best evidence of which the nature of the case admits.
    3. Because such a memorandum book, when the entries are confirmed by the oath of the party making them, is within, the provision of the Act of Assembly, made for the purpose of permitting books of merchants and mechanics to be given in evidence.
    
      
       See Lynch ads. Petrie, 1 Nott & McCord’s Rep. 130; Pritchard v. McOwen, Ib. 131, in note; Thomas v. Administrator Best, Ib. 186; Mc Coul v. Le Kamp, 2 Wheat. Rep. 117; and a note by Mr. Wheaton, as to admitting books in evidence generally. ' R.
      2 McM. 311; 9 Rich. 295.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Nott, J.

The books of merchants, shopkeepers, handicraftsmen, &c., are received in evidence in our Courts, from necessity, to prove the delivery of articles or worlc done ; but even that is opening a considerable door to fraud and perjury. And to admit the evidence offered in this case, would seem like introducing a general rule, *that a party may, in all cases, be a witness in his own cause. If a day laborer L does not do his duty, the employer may discharge him. If he is a slave, he may apply to his master to remedy the evil, or discharge him, as circumstances may require. But the mischief would be incalculable, were the practice, now contended for, to be indulged. A master; who supposed he was receiving daily wages for a slave might, at the end of a month, or any other given period, meet a discount to the amount of half his services.

Hunt, for the motion.

The motion must be refused.

Colcock, Gantt, Johnson and Richardson, JJ., concurred.  