
    Richard B. Courtney v. The Commonwealth.
    June, 1827.
    Evidence — Bank Teller’s Book — Effect.—Tie book of a teller In a bank Is not per se evidence to establish the facts appearing- In that book, but may be given in evidence in connection with the evidence of the teller himself, If the said teller’s evidence make it proper to refer to it, to prove that a particular entry was made. LThls was in a prosecution for forgery.]
    Bill of Exceptions — What ItriustShow. — The bill of exceptions ought to shew clearly, that such book was offered in evidence in connection with the teller’s evidence; otherwise, it will not be so presumed.
    
      
       Evidence. —See generally, monographic note on “Evidence” appended to Lee v. Tapscott, 2 Wash. 276.
    
    
      
       Bill of Execeptions — What It Must Show. — In Law-rence v. Com., 86 Va. 579, 10 S. E. Rep. 840, the court held that nothing that transpired during the trial in the court below would be considered a part of the record unless made so by a bill of exceptions or order of the court; and that, the mere statement in the record that certain pleas were rejected and that parties excepted to various rulings of the court is: not sufficient. The principal case, Rowt v. Kile, t Leigh 216; White v. Toncray. 9 Leigh 347; Herring-ton v. Harkins, 1 Rob. 591; Bowyer v. Hewitt. 2 Gratt. 193; Johnson v. Jennings, 10 Gratt. 1; Fitz-hugh y. Fitzhugh, 11 Gratt. 301: Dickinson v. Dickinson, 25 Gratt. 321; Stoneman’s Case, 25 Gratt. 868; 4 Min. Inst. 746, are cited as authority.
      See further, monographic noteon “Bills of Exception” appended to Stoneman v. Com., 25 Gratt. 887.
    
   This was a Writ of Error to a judgment of the Superior Court of Henrico. The plaintiff in error was tried on an indlctment for the forgery of a check for ten dollars, purporting to be drawn by one John Allen, jr. on the Cashier of the Farmers’ Bank of Virginia; he was convicted and sentenced. At the trial, six exceptions were taken to the opinion of the Court, on questions arising therein ; all of these were embodied in one bill: it is deemed proper to state two of those points only, on one of which the judgment was reversed, there being no error in the others. The bill stated, that “on the trial a witness was introduced, who stated, that he was paying-teller of the E'armers’ Bank of Virginia, and was such teller on the day *on which the offence charged in the indictment was alleged to have been committed, and for some years before, and ever since, and as such, in the constant practice of paying checks drawn on the said Bank; and proved that the check, on which the indictment Was founded, was paid at the said Bank; to the admission of which evidence the counsel for the prisoner excepted, there being no other proof than the statement of the said witness, that he the said witness was what he represented himself, and no evidence except his own that he was properly authorised to pay checks on the said Bask, which objection was overruled.”

“On the same trial, a book, said by the last mentioned witness to be in his owb hand-writing, and to be the book in which he the said witness daily entered the names of the persons, whose orders or checks were paid at the said Bank, and the amount of such checks was offered in evidence by the Attorney for the Commonwealth, to the admission of which evidence the accused also objected, which objection, however, was overruled by the Court, who permitted it to go to the jury.”

In discussing this subject in conference, the Judges were of opinion, that it did not sufficiently appear from the bill of exceptions, that the teller’s Book was offered in evidence in connection with the evidence of the teller himself, and that therein there was error. From this opinion, the Judge who had sat in the Court below dissented, being of opinion that, taking both exceptions together, that fact did sufficiently appear.

The following was entered as the opinion of the Court.

It seems to the Court here, that there was error in so much of the judgment of the Superior Court as is set forth by the following words in the bill of exceptions, to wit: “On the same trial, a book, &c.” the Court being of opinion that the said book was not per se evidence, and it not appearing that the said book was offered in evidence in connection with the evidence of the teller, for the purpose «of proving that the check in the said bill of exceptions mentioned was ■entered as paid in that book by the said •teller. It is, therefore, considered by the ■Court, that the judgment aforesaid be reversed and annulled, and this Court proceeding to give such judgment as the said Superior Court ought to have given, it is further considered that the verdict of the jury be set aside, and that a Venire Facias de novo be awarded, and a new trial granted to the prisoner, on which new trial the said book is not to be offered in evidence per se, to establish the facts appearing in that book, but may be given in evidence in connection with the evidence of the teller, if the evidence of the teller make it proper that the said book should be referred to, to establish the fact that any particular entry is therein made.  