Sheehan v. Hennessey
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the deceased and charged by him upon his books of account. The plaintiff did not elect to testify, except to identify the books. The. defendant offered to testify that she did not owe the deceased for the goods. The offer was excluded, and the defendant excepted. The defendant also asked leave to recall the plaintiff, and show by her that the deceased employed a clerk in his store, more or less.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered to the defendant by the deceased and charged by him upon his books of account. The plaintiff did not elect to testify, except to identify the books. The. defendant offered to testify that she did not owe the deceased for the goods. The offer was excluded, and the defendant excepted. The defendant also asked leave to recall the plaintiff, and show by her that the deceased employed a clerk in his store, more or less. The request was denied, and the defendant excepted.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Before tbe statute of 1857, permitting parties to actions to testify, except where the adverse party is an administrator or guardian not electing and refusing to testify, books of account were made evidence by the suppletory oath of the party, and in case of his death by the oath of his administrator. Dodge v. Morse, 3 N. H. 232. Since that statute, books of account of persons deceased and of those under guardianship are introduced in evidence, in the 'same way and by the same mode of proof as before, without regard to the exception (Bailey v. Harvey, 60 N. H. 152, 155) ; for the statute was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Page v. WhiddenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Bailey v. HarveySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880
- Cochran v. LangmaidSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stevens v. MoultonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1894