
    The Howe Machine Company v. Stiles et al.
    1. Evidence: letters: proof op contents. The statement of a wit-' 'ness, to the effect that he does not.know where certain letters received ■ by him are, is not sufficient to authorize the introduction of evidence to prove the contents of the letters.
    
      Appeal from Greene District Court.
    
    Thursday, April 22.
    Action to recover the value of certain sewing machines, delivered to the defendant Stiles, agent of the plaintiff, and for. which he agreed to account. The plaintiff claimed the defendants were indebted to it, on account of machines so delivered, in the sum of three hundred and sixty dollars, or thereabouts. The defendants denied tbe allegations of the petition and pleaded payment. Trial to tbe court, and judgment for tbe plaintiff - for fifty-five dollars and costs. Tlie plaintiff appeals. ■
    
      C. II. Jaclcson, for appellant. .
    No appearance for appellees.
   Servers, J.

One Eeece, a witness for the defendants, testified he had received certain letters from the plaintiff, in relation to the matters in controversy, and that he “had looked for the letters and could not find them; was not requested to look for them * * : think they were destroyed;” and on cross-examination said witness stated that he did not know that he had made a thorough examination for said letters.

«Against the objection of the plaintiff, the defendants were allowed to prove the contents of said letters. This we think was error. It does not appear the witness examined or looked in any place where said letters would likely be found, or were usually kept. lie did not know they had been destroyed, and he in substance only stated he did not know where they were. This is not sufficient. 1 Greenleaf’s Evidence, § 558; Horseman v. Todhunter, 12 Iowa, 230.

Eeversed.  