
    
      J. B Clough vs. James Little.
    
    Where a plaintiff becomes a witness to prove his book entries, he may be cross examined by the defendant.
    Action for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff, a merchant, produced his books and testified “that his clerk reported to him the terms agreed upon by him and the defendant, respecting the sale of the goods, and upon that report the witness made the entry; witness delivered the goods to a drayman, who told witness that defendant had sent for them.” Held that the evidence was insufficient, and the plaintiff was non-suited.
    
      Before Gantt, J. at Charleston, May Term, 1831.
    Action for cotton bagging sold and delivered. The plaintiff produced his book of original entries, and testified to the entry as made by himself, &c. He was then asked by defendant’s counsel if he had sold and delivered the bagging himself, personally, to the defendant. This question was objected to, on the ground that the plaintiff’s examination should be confined to the proof of the entry. His Honor decided that the question was admissible, and the plaintiff answered that his clerk reported to him the terms agreed upon between him and Little, respecting the sale of the cotton bagging, and upon that report the witness made the entry. Witness delivered the bagging to a dray-man, who told witness that defendant had sent for it. On this testimony His Honor ordered a non-suit, and the plaintiff appealed, on the grounds :
    1. That the question to the plaintiff, whether he had delivered the bagging personally, was irregular.
    
      2. That the sale and delivery were sufficiently proved,
    
      Lance, for the motion,
    .-contra.
   Curia, per

Johnson, J.

Book entries, made by merchants and shop-keepers, in the regular course of their business, are admitted in evidence from convenience and necessity, and the best security which the rule furnishes against its fraudulent abuse is, that they must be supported by their oaths ; and that were useless unless the defendant could cross examine them, for that is the only means of purging their consciences. By this rule the merchant plaintiff is allowed to be a witness for himself, and there is no case in which, according to the rules of the common law, an ex parte examination, where the witness is present and in the power of the court, has been admitted or allowed as evidence. We are, therefore, very clearly of opinion that the defendant was properly allowed to interrogate the plaintiff, as to the delivery of the goods, and quite as well satisfied that the delivery was not proved.

Motion dismissed.

O’Neall, J. concurred.  