
    The Administrator of Thomas Lynch ads. E. Petrie.
    TRe books of a bricklayer, or other mechanic, as well as the merchant, are admissible to prove the performance of a particular job of work in the course of Ris trade, and of articles furnished. But the articles must be specified, and a general charge for work and labor is not good, 
    
    This was an action to recover the plaintiff’s wages as a bricklayer, for one hundred aud ninety days work, and labor done and performed at the request of the defendant’s intestate. It was tried before Mr. Justice Gbimke, at Charleston. The only evidence offered to prove the demand, was the book entries of the plaintiff. Their admission was objected to, on the part of the defendant, but the presiding Judge suffered them to go to the jury, and they found a verdict for the plaintiff.
    The defendant now moved for a new trial, on the ground, that the plaintiff’s books ought not to have been admitted as evidence of his demand.
    
      
      
         In Pritchard v. M’Owen, (MSS.) tried during this term, it was decided that a tradesman’s or merchant’s books were not admissible to prove or contradict a special contract, and see post, 186, Thomas v. Administrator of Best. R.
      Also Kimball v. Lange & Roye, 9 Rich. 296. Kenlock v. Brown, 2 Sp. 286. White v. St. Philip’s Church, 2 McM. 311; Ib. 137; Post. 436, 2 vol. 474, 2 Bail. 449, note; 10 Rich. 359; 1 McC. 106, note; 2 N. & McC. 474.
    
   *The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Johnson, J.

The regular shop books of a mechanic, as well as the merchant, are admissible to prove the delivery of specific articles, in the line of Ms business, (see the opinion of the Court in the case of Thomas v. Administrator of Best, delivered in this term,) and those of the mechanic are, I think, admissible to prove the performance of a particular job of work, in the course of his trade, and of articles furnished. To extend this rule further would open a door for incalculable fraud and mischief; and would in the course of time wholly subvert the rule of law, that a party shall not be a witness in his own cause. The evidence admitted in this case, is a charge for work and labor only, and contains no specification except that of time. If entries of this character were admitted, every description of persons who work for hire, would have nothing to do, to warrant a recovery, but to measure their services by this standard.

I am of opinion, that the evidence was inadmissible, and that a new trial ought therefore to be granted.

Colcock and Oheves, JJ., concüiTed.

Gantt, J.,

(I dissent.) It has already been adjudged, that a carpenter’s books are allowed in evidence, to prove an account for work and materials, and I cannot discriminate between the work of a carpenter and bricklayer. If the books of the former are admitted in evidence, I think it should be the case with the latter.

'King, for the motion. J. B. White, contra. 
      
       Post. 186.
     