Cammack v. Newman
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Ashley Circuit Court; Henry W. Wells, Judge; 1, The burden was on defendants and they were 'entitled to open and conclude. Kirby’s Digest, § § 3107, 6196; 82 Ark. 331; 32 Id. 593; 29 Id. 153; 59 Id. 140, 143; 61 Id. 627. 2. It was error to refuse to require plaintiff to produce the original books of account and to admit the duplicate accounts. No foundation was laid for the admission of secondary evidence. 1. The demand for the original books was unreasonable.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ashley Circuit Court; Henry W. Wells, Judge; 1, The burden was on defendants and they were 'entitled to open and conclude. Kirby’s Digest, § § 3107, 6196; 82 Ark. 331; 32 Id. 593; 29 Id. 153; 59 Id. 140, 143; 61 Id. 627. 2. It was error to refuse to require plaintiff to produce the original books of account and to admit the duplicate accounts. No foundation was laid for the admission of secondary evidence. 1. The demand for the original books was unreasonable. Their admission was a matter within the discretion of the court, and no abuse is shown. Kirby’s Digest, § 3074; 10 Ark.…
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
Appellants present several matters for which they ask a reversal, and all have been considered, but there is only one of any moment,, and that is the one which is stressed by the appellant: whether there was error in refusing to give appellants the opening and closing arguments in the trial.
The suit was brought by the appellee corporation against Cammack and Norman upon two promissory notes, which were attached as Exhibits A and B to the complaint, each for $684.01, and each dated the 5th of May, 1905.' The case was tried upon the complaint and a substituted answer. The first two paragraphs…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Roberts v. PadgettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
3Cited by1 opinion
- Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917