
    Fred. W. Eder vs. Thomas Reilly.
    Submitted on briefs and decided Feb. 15, 1892.
    Witness — Refreshing Memory. — A witness cannot, for the purpose of refreshing his recollection, refer to a writing which is not verified as correct.
    Appeal by plaintiff, Fred. W. Eder, from an order of the municipal court of the city of St. Paul, H. W. Cory, J., made August 28, 1891, refusing a new trial.
    Action to recover of Thomas Eeilly, defendant, pay for 24,000 sewer brick at $8.75 per 3,000. They were manufactured by plaintiff at Chaska, Minn., and shipped by cars to defendant, a contractor at St. Paul. He denied that he bought or received any more than 5,000 brick. The judge found that defendant bought and received but 5,000. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, and, being denied, he appealed.
    
      Lewis é Hallam, for appellant.
    
      B. A. Walsh, for respondent.
   Gilfillan, C. J.

It is apparent that on the trial the defendant was permitted to state from the bills rendered'to him by his bricklayers the number of brick that went into the sewer. The bills were not verified as correctly setting forth the number of brick, either by him or by the persons who made them. They were not evidence, nor could they be referred to by the witness to refresh or recall his recollection, of the number of brick put into the sewer; for although, to justify a witness refreshing his recollection from a writing, it may not be necessary that he should have made it, nor that he should be able himself to state that it was correctly made, its correctness must be in some way verified. The dangers in allowing witnesses to refer to writings not verified are obvious. The bill of the brick association stands on the same footing with those of the bricklayers.

Order reversed.

Dickenson, J., took no part in the decision.

(Opinion published 51 N. W. Rep. 226.)  