
    Spence against Sanders.
    
      September 2, 1790.
    
    Proof of the originalof entries, and tliattlv-vwere 1K.,,ic iu ihe of _ tin.- pi»™- ^ «««try,) is jyooa evidence tor.o toa.imy upon a writ ot iu(1uUy.
    IN this case, an interlocutory order for judgment was ob« tained against the defendant. The action was brought upon , , r , _ TT . a book account, ior professional services. Upon executing the writ ot inquiry,.
    
      Pinckney and Mr. John Drayton, stated to the court the nature of the evidence they intended to offer, in order to J ’ prove the account. The plaintiff, they said, had long prac- • . ,. tised in oouth-Carohna as a physician ; but at the time ot confiscation, his estate was confiscated. His books of account were not. Before he quitted the country, he made oath before one of the judges, (Mr. Justice Pendleton,) to his original entries. That the several charges therein were for professional services, entered in his book by himself, and were in his own hand-writing; and this book contained the original entries. This book he left in Carolina. His hand-writing in the book was sworn to. They submitted to the court, that this was proper evidence, under the circumstances aforesaid, to go to the jury, upon a writ of m= quiry, upon the ground of its being the best evidence the nature of the case admits. They granted it was ex parte; but all evidence on writs of inquiry must necessarily be so, judgment having gone against the defendant by default. It appeared by the book, that die defendanthad paid part of the account.
   Waties, J.

requested the jury to find the debt, according to the entry in that book, and to reserve the question of law for the court, and he would take time to consider of it.

Afterwards, he gave his opinion, that the evidence, under the special circumstances as stated, was good : and the plaintiff took his judgment.  