
    John E. Cassidy vs. Matthew Hyland.
    Suffolk.
    March 23.
    April 6, 1876.
    Colt & Loed, JJ., absent.
    In an action on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered, there was evidence of the sale and delivery, and that the plaintiff’s bookkeeper showed a copy of the bill annexed to the writ to the defendant, who said he would settle it in a few days. Held, that this evidence was sufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff; and that the defendant’s exceptions were frivolous, and must be overruled, with double costs.
    Contract on an account annexed for goods sold and delivered. Trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows :
    The plaintiff called his bookkeeper and asked him if he had shown the bill annexed to the writ to the defendant, and if so, what the defendant said. The question was objected to, but the judge admitted the question, and the witness testified that on one occasion, at the store of the plaintiff, he showed the defendant the bill annexed to the writ, and that the defendant said he would settle it in a few days. On cross-examination, the witness said this was not the bill, but a copy of it. He also gave evidence tending to show the sale and delivery of the items charged.
    This was the only evidence introduced by the plaintiff; and the defendant asked the judge to rule, as matter of law, that it was insufficient to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. The judge declined so to rule, and left the case to the jury on all the evi dence, and they returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defend' ant alleged exceptions.
    
      S. R. Townsend, for the defendant.
    
      I. W. Richardson, for the plaintiff, moved for double costs.
   The Court overruled the exceptions, with double costs.  