
    Charles Wall et al., Appellants, v. Cornelius C. Ellis et al., Respondents.
    (Argued September 19, 1873;
    decided January term, 1874.)
    This was an appeal from a judgment affirming a judgment entered upon the report of a referee; the order of affirmance did not state that it was upon questions of fact. The only questions of law presented' were as to the reception of certain books of plaintiffs in evidence, one a book in which the order •for the goods in question was written by a clerk, and the other a blotter upon which they were, charged. These were objected to generally, no grounds being specified. The grounds urged on the appeal were that the clerk who made the entries should have been produced or his absence accounted for, and that the entries were not part of the res gestes. To sustain the general objection defendants’ counsel urged: 1st. That the point of the objections was sufficiently apparent from the nature and subject-matter thereof. 2d. That the books were under no circumstances admissible, and, as the objection could not be obviated, it was not necessary to specify it. Held, not tenable, as there are cases where the books of parties are competent, and so when objections are raised to their admission the grounds thereof should be specified.
    
      Richard H. Huntley for the appellants.
    
      Horace M. Hastings for the respondents.
   Lott, Ch. C.,

reads for reversal of order and affirmance of judgment on report of referee.

All concur.

Order reversed and judgment accordingly.  