
    *Craven, Executor of Craven, against Shaird.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Plaintiff’? book is evidence of money lent, as part of the items of the account, but not conclusive.
    The exception taken to the judgment below was, that the justice permitted the plaintiff to prove, by his day-book, the various items of his account, the principal of which was one for money lent.
    
      Leake, in support of the judgment.
    As to the other items in the account, there was no controversy, and there is no ground of objection to the evidence by which it was supported. The single question therefore is, whether an account composed of different items can be legally proved by the plaintiff’s book, so as to charge the defendant with money lent ? It is not contended, that testimony of this kind is conclusive, or entirely free from objection, but that when transactions are proved to have taken place between tho parties in the way of business, the parties are in the habit of entering every item in the book, and not being aware that different kinds of testimony will be required to prove that goods were purchased, work performed, or money lent, they enter them all in the same manner. There does not appear any particular ground upon which evidence of this kind can be objected to in this instance.
    The general rule of law relating to this description of evidence is laid down in 3 Bl. Com. 388, 369, hut no exception of this kind is pointed out or alluded to. Nor is any stated in Trials per Pais 455, 456, 457, where the decisions are collected, or in Bull. N. P. 305.
    It is well known to be the uniform custom in this state, to admit this species of evidence, and no distinction of the kind now taken was ever before urged.
    
      In Pitman v. Maddox, (Salk. 690,) Holt said, that the proof of the handwriting of a deceased servant, by whom the entries were made, was as good as the proof of a witness’ hand to an obligation; and the same evidence was admitted, as equally effective, in Price v. Torrington, (Salk. 285).
   *Boudinot, J.

A man’s own books are not evidence of money lent, not being in the usual course of business.

Kirkpatrick, J.

The rule is, that shop-books are evidence in the course of business, but not of money lent.

Kinsey, G. J.

When a book contains various charges, though some of the items are for money lent, it is usual to suffer it to go to the jury. In this case we are somewhat in the dark, for want of a transcript of the account, which has not been transmitted by the justice. You may take a rule to have it brought up.

On a subsequent day, the transcript having been produced, judgment was affirmed una voce.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       See the American cases on the subject of the admission of the party’s books in evidence collected. 2 Bac. Abr. 636, Wilson’s edit, and in Phil. Evi. 195 to 200. In Slade v. Teasdale, 2 Bay. 172, the book of the plaintiff, who was a carpenter, was admitted to prove the items of his account for work and labor; and evidence of the same kind is constantly received, without objection, in the courts of Pennsylvania As to how far a party’s books are evidence of money lent, see Wilson v. Wilson, 1 Halsted’s Rep. 95; Swing v. Sparks, ante 59.
     