IN EB PBEY. 379 �that an invoice-book, which dispenses with the need of a stock- book, {In re White, 2 N. B. E. 590,) was properly kept, and that all the other usual or necessary books of account were also kept. The objection being, therefore, to the manner in which the books were kept, and to imperfections or omissions therein, general objections like those above stated are not sufficient, The particular irregnlarities or omissions must be pointed ont in the specifications to entitle them to be considered. In re LitUefield, 3 N. B. E. 57 ; Hammond v. Coolidge, la. 273. �The specifications under this objection accordingly state the follow- ing particular errors or omissions, which wUl be considered seriatim. �(a) No accounts in ledger or sales-book of the consignments to Beadles, Wood & Go. and to Zacharias & Go., or of the pledge of goods to De Fries upon a loan. of $5,556.60. The consignments above referred to were entered in special consignment books, as already observed, and, so far as remittances were received on account of them, the proper debits were made in the cash-book, and the due counter entries were made in the journal and ledger under the mer- chandise account, corresponding with the receipts of cash entered in the cash-book. Nothing else was essential, so far as I can percoive, to the full understanding of these transactions. The entries, taken all together, showed the property consigned, its estimated value, the receipts from it up to the time of failure, and that sales by the con- signees remained at the time of the assignment to be still accounted for. It would be time enough to enter in the sales-book when retums of sales were received. The testimony of the expert that there were no entries in relation to those consignments in the journal or ledger is shown to be incorrect. The faet that the entries were in aggre- gates, along with other items from the cash-book, does not exonerate him from the charge of having testified without sufficient examina- tion, as the mode of entering by aggregates the transactions of sev- erad days from the cash-book was manifest upon the faceof the books. As the transaction with Beadles, Wood & Go. was one of the main subjects of inquiry, and most strongly insisted on in several different objections, this error of the expert in so important a particular greatly weakens the force of all bis testimony about the books. '^ �As no particular mode or System of keeping boojis is required, (In re Solomon, 2 N. B. E. 287; In re Newman, 3 Ben. 20; In re Towns- end, 2 Fed. Eep. 565,) it is optional with a merchant whethor he will make his books few or mauy, general or special, and whether he will enter consignments in a general ledger or in special books for ��� �
