
    E. McBride, Ex’ix. of Dr. McBride, deceased, vs. Captain Watts.
    in an action by the executrix of a deceased physician, against the cap.-tain oi'a ship, for medicine and Hlte'nd.mce on the mate of the ship, the physician’s book of original entries proved in the usual, way, and the testimony of a witness who said he presented the bill to the captain, who made no objections to it, but who could not say positively that he said he would pay it, but the impression on his mind was, that he intended to pay, was Held by the court sufficient evidence'to make the captain liable; and that it was not a case within the Statute of Frauds.
    It seems, also, that a master of a ship, by the ancient marine Jaw, when a seaman is sick or disabled, is bound to provide every thing necessary for his recovery, and his a right to deduct tile amount out of his wages.
    Charleston Court of Appeals, May Term, 1821. Motion for a new trial.
    THIS was a summary process for the amount of a doctor’s bill for medicine and attendance, on the mate of captain Watts', ship, while he was ill of a fever in Charleston. In support of this bill, Dr. McBride's original book of entries was produced and proved in the usual manner. In •addition to which, a witness, Mr. Barker, proved that he had tendered this bill to captain Watts, who made no objection to it; but he could not say positively that he said he would pay it, but the impression on his mind was, that he intended to pay it.
    To this it was objected on the part of the defendant, that this was a case which came under the Statute of Frauds, being for medicine and services rendered to a third person; and therefore to make captain Watts liable, there should have been some memorandum in ■ writing, promising to pay this debt, before captain Watts could be chargeable.
    To this objection, it was replied that physicians books of entries were evidence both as to the person chargeable,' and the services, &c. rendered, in the same manner as shop keepers books; and this it was urged was corroborated and confirmed by the testimony of the witness who tendered the account, as he did not object to it, when the account -/ras tendered to him. If the defendant had not considered himself as liable, or if be had not employed Dr. Me Bride to attend his mate, that was the time for him to have denied it. Instead of which, the witness said the impression of his mind was, that lie would pay it; but most certainly, that be made no objection to it.
   Mr. Justice Bay

delivered the opinion of the court.

After hearing counsel on both sides,- Í was of opinion, and so decreed, that the doctor’s book of original entries' was good evidence, both as to the medicine administered, and of the person at whose instance the services were rendered, upon the authority of the case of Foster vs. Sinkler, (1 Bay 38) where it was determined, that a shop keeper’s book was prima ftcie evidence,' both of the sale and delivery. And so in the case of Maddox ads. Pitman, (Salk. 690) which was assumpsit for a taylor's bill; proof of the band-writing of the servant who made the entries, he being dead, was held sufficient, and Lord Holt held it good, though no proof of the delivery was made. So in the present instance, I thought that the entries made by Dr. Lie-Bride were good proof that Capt. Watts had employed him, and therefore that this case did not come under the Statute óf Frauds. But I was further confirmecFin this opinion by the testimony of the witness, who proved that when the account was tendered to the defendant, he made no objection to it, which was a tacit admission that he had employ - ed the docto?.

There was still another ground in the case, which I thought a good one, to-wit: dial a master of a ship, by the ancient marine law, where a seaman is sick or disabled, is bound ttí provide every thing necessary for his recovery, and has aright to deduct the amount out of his wages.— ■(1 Moll. 351, Laws of Oleron, ch. 6.)

From this decree, there has been an appeal to this court, where the case has been again argued ; where the arguments which had been taken in the com t below were again urged. But I can see no ground for altering the opinion then given in the case, and therefore think the rule, for the new trial, should be discharged.

Justices Colcock, Nott and Gantt, concurred.  