
    Admr’s of James Herlock, dec. vs. Jacob Riser. Nathan Herlock vs. Jacob Riser.
    Where the plaintiff was a shop keeper, and sued the defendant on ah open account, most of the items of which were for sidrituovs ¡ignora, he may nevertheless recover his account, and his books are admissa-ble to prove it. Nor is he bound to prove that he liad a licence to retail spirituous liquóTs.
    The cases were tried before Mr: Justice Gantt, Orange-burgh district, April Term, 1£S21.
    1 HESE were two summary processes on open account. Almost all the items consisted of charges for liquors sold in small quantities. Considering these establishments as nuisances, tending to idleness and the prostration of correct morals, and no license to retail being produced, the presiding judge ordered nonsuits to be entered up, notwithstanding the accounts were proved in the usual manner of merchants accounts.
    
      Curia advisare vult.
    
   Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the court,

The court have viewed in the same light as the judge below, the consequences flowing.from shops established for the sole purpose of vending whiskey and other ardent spirits ; but under existing circumstances, as these accounts appear to have been legally proved, they, think the nonsuits were improperly ordered.

Nott £5? McCord, (for Footman,) for the motion.

Glover, contra.

The cases are therefore to be reinstated on the docket for trial at the next court.

Justices1 Johnson, Huger, Nott and Colcock, concurred,  