Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Wis. 545

Riggs v. Weise

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1869

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1869-06-15

Money demand, for sawing lumber. Plaintiff called, as his witness, William Gferry, who had done the sawing and kept the book in which the charges were entered. G-erry swore positively that the entries were correct; that they were made by his wife from memoranda furnished by him, usually every Saturday night, he reading them off to her, and looking over to see that she wrote them down, and to satisfy himself that they were correctly entered.

Relies on Hill v. State · Schettler v. Jones

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1932

5 state decisions

1018691870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

DixoN, C. J.

¶1The question is, whether Gerry, after having sworn positively that he knew the entries in the book were correct, could be permitted to testify to the quantity of lumber sawed, as appeared from such entries, although, independently of the entries, he had no present, recollection of the facts stated therein. This was the precise question decided by this court in Schettler v. Jones (20 Wis. 417); and the court below was right in admitting the testimony. The correctness of the entries being thus established by a living witness to them, it was competent for such witness, or any other, to state their contents to the court., And the fact that the entries were made by the wife of the witness from memoranda furnished by him can make no difference. It is the positive oath of the witness, verifying the correctness of the entries at the time they were made, which makes the reading or statement of their contents to the court or jury admissible. See Hill v. The State, 17 Wis. 675, 679.

¶2By the Oourt. —Judgment affirmed.

/24/wis/545 · .json · Public domain