Evidence, Competency, Book entry.
At the trial of an action by the payee against two makers of a promissory note, where it appeared that the defendants were partners, it was proper to exclude testimony that one defendant stated to the other in the absence of the plaintiff that he had paid the note. A refusal by the judge, at the trial of an action against members of a partnership as makers of a promissory note, to admit in evidence a book entry made by one defendant in his book and tending to show payment of the note, will not be declared erroneous where the record before this court does not show that the book entry offered was made in the books of the partnership, or that the trial judge found it to have been made in good faith, in the regular course of business, and before the beginning of the proceeding.
WAIT, J.
There is nothing in this appeal. The evidence excluded was a statement made in the absence of the plaintiff by one partner to another, that he had paid the firm note in question.
It does not appear that the book entry offered was made in the books of the partnership, or that the trial judge found it to have been made in good faith, in the regular course of business, and before the beginning of the proceeding. Consequently G.L.c. 233, § 78, which makes books of account admissible in certain cases, has no application here.
No citation of authorities is necessary.
Order dismissing report affirmed.