Ossipee v. Grant

Assumpsit, to recover $586.78 and interest. Plea, general issue, and statute of limitations. Writ dated April 1, 1876. Tbe plaintiff town bad borrowed of tbe defendant $500, which was repaid, and, as the plaintiffs claimed, was repaid by mistake a second time, March 10, 1865, with interest, which the defendant denied. Tbe plaintiffs put in evidence tbe books of tbe town, kept by tbe treasurer, and called one Gilman as a witness, who testified tbat be found a deficiency upon tbe books of $500 hired of tbe defendant, and not accounted for. Upon cross-examination, tbe defendant was not permitted to ask the witness if be discovered discrepancies in tbe treasurer’s accounts with other persons; and tbe defendant excepted.

Tbe plaintiffs claimed tbat the statute of limitations was suspended because tbe defendant fraudulently concealed tbe cause of action. Tbe defendant excepted to tbe refusal of tbe court to cbai’ge tbat tbe plaintiffs must prove such concealment beyond a reasonable doubt. Verdict for the plaintiffs.

The question which the defendant desired to ask did not relate to errors in the account in controversy, but in other accounts. Its purpose was to test the correctness of the bookkeeper. When a book account is proved, and the accuracy of the book-keeper is involved, it is not error of law to allow other accounts in the same book to be introduced in impeachment of his accuracy: but how much time will be profitably and properly spent on the collateral inquiry is a question of fact to be determined at the trial term.

The request for instructions was properly denied.