
    Charles & Eliza Elms vs. Wm. Chevis.
    A book account may be proved by proving the hand writing of the clerk, who made the entries, if he be out of the state.
    THIS was a summary process on an open account for goods sold and delivered. The original entries were made by the plaintiff’s clerk, who was absent from the state. It was proved that the entries were in the handwriting of the absent clerk, that he was the plaintiff’s clerk, and that he was out of the state.
    This evidence was deemed insufficient by the Circuit Court, and the plaintiff was refused a decree ; from which decision an appeal was now brought up.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court:

The admission of such evidence has been, I think, too uniform and continued in this state, to be now disturbed. It is not in strict accordance with the rule which require? the best evidence, but it is of a class of exceptions which mercantile convenience has sanctioned, and to which experience has furnished no objections.

Williams, for the motion*

Clinton, contra.

The motion must therefore be granted.

Justices Johnson and Colcock, concurred.  