IVORY AND CO, V. GOURLAY [1816] IV DOW. It was contended for the Appellant that the entries in the books of Gourlay were by themselves semiplena probatio, and, with the Pursuer's oath in supplement, and evidence of Starrock, ought to be considered as full evidence of the delivery (Ersk. lib. 4, tit. 2, s. 4). On the other hand, it was contended that these books were too irregularly kept to be relied on as to the second and third articles, and that these being out of the question, the price of the first was extinguished by the triennial prescription. Lord Eldon (C.). If a merchant's books may, by the law of Scotland, afford a semiplena probatio in his own favour, they ought at least to be more regularly kept than these are for no man can be safe in dealing with another, if books so ir- regularly kept are to be admitted as evidence. The whole demand may be honest ; but there are many honest demands which, on grounds of general policy, cannot be enforced, on account of the danger to the interests of the community; and if persons will keep their books in this way they must bear the loss. ( [471] Judgment:-"That there was sufficient proof to sustain the demand in respect of the first article, unless barred by prescription; that there was not sufficient " evidence to sustain the demand as to the second and third articles; but the finding "to be without prejudice to the instituting of any other snit in relation to the third article, in case the Pursuer should allege that any thing was due to him in respect thereof, otherwise than as represented in this account; and that there was sufficient proof as to the fourth article: And with these findings the cause was remitted." Agents for Appellants, SporTISWOODE and ROBERTSON. $ <$ $$ Agent for Respondent, RICHARDSON. NOTE. In the cases of "Jones ». Hancock," and "Long. Hancock," [4 Dow] p. 145, it ought to have been stated in p. 150, in addition to the statement as to the heir-at-law's case, that on the ejectment by the heir of Hugh Henry, the ultimate devisee, the judg- ment in K. B. was against the lessor of the Plaintiff, and that that judgment was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (Vid. Index, or Table of Contents, tit. "Devise"). $8 In the case of Stacpoole v. Stacpoole, p. 221, by the words "nothing was said upon this point" (viz. whether such of the next of kin as did not appeal against a decree were entitled to the benefit of the appeal of one who did appeal) "in the ultimate "judgment," it is meant that nothing was said about the point in the speech in judg ment; for it will be perceived, from the abstract of the formal judgment, that they were, though nothing was said about it in the speech in judgment, in fact held entitled to the benefit of the original appeal, having been first made parties to the original and cross appeals, as Respondent. 1231
