Frank v. Pennie
Before: Henshaw
Synopsis
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a new trial. J. C. B. Hebbard, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Henshaw, J. Appeal from the order denying plaintiff a new trial. Plaintiff sued defendant, administrator of the estate of Joseph Spanier, deceased, to recover certain sums of money which he alleges were deposited by himself and by his assignors with Spanier upon the latter’s promise to repay upon demand.
The defendant made denial, and upon the trial was allowed to introduce evidence showing that the debts were gambling debts, for moneys lost to plaintiff and his assignors at the game of polcer.
The court found in accordance with the evidence introduced by the defense and rendered judgment accordingly.
It was permissible to introduce evidence of the nature of the transaction between the parties under the general issue. Plaintiff averred and defendant denied that money had been deposited with or lent to Spanier under his promise to repay. In showing that no money was in fact deposited it was competent to prove that the claim was for a gaming debt.
Spanier conducted a cigar stoie, in the rooms at the rear of which games of poker were played. His former clerk was allowed to testify that he kept Spanier’s books; that one of them was called the poker book, and contained statements of Spanier’s losses to the other players; Spanier would give him memoranda of the names of the players and the amounts lost, and he would transfer the memoranda to the book. The loss of the book was proved, and then the witness was allowed to testify to its contents, plaintiff reserving the following objection:
“Q,. Do you remember how much appeared to be due on his hooks to Mr. Linville, on account of poker games, from Joseph Spanier?
“Mr. Sullivan. I object as leading.
“The Court. That is a proper question.
[256]“Plaintiff excepts.
“A. Nine hundred dollars.
“Q. How much was due to Mr. Barnett?
“Same objection. Same ruling. Exception.
“A. About five hundred dollars.”
Under proper objection the evidence was inadmissible. The book was not a tradesman’s book of original entry, which after certain formal proofs is admissible in evidence. It contained merely declarations of Spanier in his own interest made to and set down by his clerk.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)