
    [Philadelphia,
    March 31, 1823.]
    INGRAHAM against BOCKIUS and another.
    IN ERROR.
    IF a servant, in the course of delivering out goo.ds to customers, make memoranda, and the same night, or next day, entries are made by the master, in books, from these memoranda, such books are books of original entries, and are admissible, accompanied with the master’s oath, as evidence to charge a customer.
    Error to the Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
    This suit was brought by Peter Bockius and Rudolph Bockius, plaintiffs below, against Francis Ingraham, to recover the-value of a certain quanty of meat, alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs. On the trial, the plaintiffs produced John Vasey, a witness, who swore, “that he was employed by the plaintiffs .during the years 1816, 1817, 1818, 1819, to do business as a butcher for them, according to the course of their business, that of butchers, which was to kill one day, and carry the meat round the next day to customers, who lived at some distance from the plaintiff’s residence. That the defendant was a customer, and took meat. That the said John Vasey kept memoranda with a pencil, for his own use, of the meat hé sold, and of the persons he sold to; two books, in which the same were made, being produced, and part of another; but that the same were, in general, destroyed, those being the only memoranda to be found — and the same night, or the next day, the same was entered in their books, and that he, Vasey, stood by, and the same were called over twice to see if they were correct. ” The plaintiffs then offered the entries in the plaintiffs books, (made from the said memoranda,) as evidence of the sale, and delivery of the meat to the defendant, the plaintiffs having previously sworn, that the books into which the memoranda were so as aforesaid copied, were their books of original entry, and the entries made in their hand writing. The defendant objected to the reading of the entries in the said last mentioned books, contending, that the same were not original entries, nor the said books, books of original entry, and prayed the court not to admit the same to be read, as evidence to'the jury, to charge the defendant. The courts however, did permit the- same to be read to the jury. The defendant then objected; that the said last nientioned books and entries, were not evidencé of the sale and delivery of .goods to the defendant, and requested the court to charge the jury, that the same were not evidence of the sale and delivery of goods to the defendant; but the court charged the jury, that the same were evidence of the sale and delivery of goods by the plaintiffs to the defendant. To the admission of which said evidence and charge, the defendant excepted.
    The plaintiff in error assigned the following errors:
    1st. That the court below erred in permitting the plaintiffs to) read, as evidence, to the jury, the entries in the books of the said plaintiffs, copied from the memoranda, made by John Vasey.
    
    2d. That the court below erred in charging the jury, that the said entries so copied into the said books, were evidence of goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiffs.
    
      Ingraham, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended,
    1st. That the books of the plaintiffs, received in evidence by the court below, were erroneously admitted, to prove goods sold and delivered, or labour done. The books of a plaintiff are admissible, when supported by the oath of the party keeping them; but original books of entry only fall within the rule. The book, in this case, was not a book of original entries, but only a copy from the book of original entries, which consisted of the memoranda made by Vasey n They ought to have been produced, and were the only regular proof. In Ogden v. Miller’s Executor, 1 Browne, 147, entries on a slate, áfterwards transferred to a book, were held not to be evidence of a tavern account. In Sterret v. Bull, 1 Binn. 235, this court say, that where clerks are employed, and the entries are made by them, there is no reason for allowing the book to be given in evidence as a book of original entries. But if a transcript from the entries made by a clerk be evidence, this salutary principle may easily be evaded. In Rodman v. Hoops’ Executors, 1 Dali. 85, the court directed the jury, that they should pay no regard to a ledger, allowed to be .read in evidence, if they thought it a transcript from a waste book. In Vance v. Faris, 2 Dali. 217, entries made some months after the. transactions between the parties, were rejected. He also cited Rogers v. Old, 5 Sergi & Rawle, 404.
    2d. The charge of the court was, that the books were evidence of the sale and delivery, which can only mean, that they were conclusive evidence. Whereas, books of original entry are no more than prima facie., evidence.
    
      Castor & Condie, contra.
    1st. The evidence given by the plaintiffs was very strong: country butchers delivered out meat to their servant, who distributed it to their customers, and the same night, of next day, the entries were made. It is quite as strong as the case of 'Price v. The Earl of Torrington, Salk. 285, where the plaintiff’s draymen gave him an account of beer delivered out, which he set down in a book, to which the draymen set their hands, and after the death of the dray-men, their handwriting was proved, and held sufficient. To constitute it a book, of original entries, it is enough that the entries were made at, or near the time of the transaction. Curren v. Crawford, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 3.
    2d. The court did not charge, that the entries were conclusive; only that they were evidence.
    
      Reply, Earl Torrington’s case depended on the signature of the draymen who were dead. But in this case, what the servant fold the master, was only hearsay evidence.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Gibsok, J.

Nothing appears to show that the book admitted to go to the jury, was not a book of original entries. Vasey, the witness, acted in the capacity of a servant, to deliver meat to the customers, and not in that of a book-keeper; and his memoranda, made with a pencil, he swore were only for his own use, to enable him to render a true account to the plaintiffs, of the meat sold. His memoranda, therefore, are not ter be viewed in the light of the original entries of the plaintiffs, who did not direct them to be made; or at least, for any other purpose than to obtain an accurate account of the sales to his customers. It is clear, these memoranda were not considered as evidence, to charge the customers, either by the plaintiffs, or Vasey; or as any thing else than brief notes of the transactions occurring in the course of the business, and made at the time, with a view to be used when the regular entries came to be made in the books. These entries the witness swore were made on the night of the day of delivery, or the next morning, while the witness stood by, and the memoranda were called over twice, to. see whether every thing was right. This case is very like Curren vf Crawford, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 3, except that it is stronger; the person who delivered the articles charged, being produced, and the original memoranda either produced, or their loss proved. What more could possibly be done? The entries were made in a course of dealing between the parties, at or about the time of the respective transactions; and in the usual course of the plaintiffs business: this, was, in all reason, sufficient to entitle them to be read.

Judgment affirmed.  