Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 U.S. 217

Vance v. Fairis

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided January Term, 1794.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1794-01

ON the trial of this cause, the plaintiff who was surviving partner of a Commercial House established in Dominica, offered, in evidence, a copy of entries in original books of the Company, sworn to be truly transcribed.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1794-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1903

1 state decisions

20179418001810182018301840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON the trial of this cause, the plaintiff who was surviving partner of a Commercial House established in Dominica, offered, in evidence, a copy of entries in original books of the Company, sworn to be truly transcribed. The witness-premised, however, that the dates would, by no means, ascertain the exact period at which the transactions arose between the parties, as the entries were not made in the Waite-Book for months afterwards, The defendant’s Counsel, thereupon objected to the admission of the evidence.

¶2The Counsel for the plaintiff stated, that their clients had, in fact, been engaged, during the late war, in an illicit trade with America, and that the defendant was their agent; that, therefore, it had been necessary to give a color to their transactions, and that they had not dared to make many of the entries at the time the facts occurred; But, it was contended; that as the declaration of the witness did not go to all the items; as he does not specify any that are exceptionable, and as some are unquestionably proper to be said before the Jury, the objection to the evidence can only apply to its credibility, and not to its competency.

¶3By the Court ;

¶4—It does not even appear, that the Clerk, who made the entries, was in the service, of the plaintiff at thtime the transactions took place; nor does any witness substantiate the transactions themselves upon oath. We are always inclined to be, liberal its the admission of evidence upon commercial controversies; but to establish a book, or the copies of entries in a book, kept under Rich circumstances, would be giving too great a latitude for deception, and, if drawn into precedent might prove a pernicious innovation upon the rules of law. The evidence cannot, therefore, be received.

/2/us/217 · .json · Public domain