17 Del. Ch. 285 | New York Court of Chancery | 1931
The city has undertaken to show the existence of a deficit in the collector’s accounts. It has produced and placed in evidence all the books and records made and kept by the collector during the years over which the alleged deficit occurred. These books and records are exceedingly voluminous. An audit of them authorized by the city required some months of time to complete. The city employed the witness White, who is a certified public accountant, to make the audit. He laid out the plan of the audit and put several men to work on the books and records, himself doing part of the detailed work of the audit.
The admission of the auditor’s report into evidence has been objected to by the solicitor for the defendant Walsen.
As a practical proposition, if an audit of the sort here shown is not admissible in evidence, the only alternative method of showing the state of the collector’s accounts would be for the court to consume weeks of time by listening to witnesses go through the many details that the voluminous records contain. This undertaking would also prove, I have no doubt, quite confusing to the court. Certainly such a time consuming and confusing method of getting at the facts ought not to be adopted unless there is some compelling reason for doing so. I do not see any reason why a party should be put to a most tedious and confusing method of proving the relevant contents of books of account and the court deprived of the aid which an intelligent study and summarization of them would give, where as here all the original sources of information are placed before the court from which the accuracy of the summarization can be demonstrated or disproved as the case may be.
The time is not available to discuss the state of the authorities bearing on the question which the pending objection presents. The Delaware case of Redden v. Spruance, 4 Har. 269, cited by the objecting defendant, does not appear to me to have any bearing on the question. The following citations I think support the admissibility of the auditor’s summary. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Keyes (C. C.) 91 F. 47, 58; 2 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 1230; 22 C. J. 1017.
Not only may the objecting defendant have a reasonable opportunity to examine the supporting books and records that are in evidence, but he may also have the opportunity, if he cares to embrace it, of calling back for further cross examination the auditors who were engaged in the work of the audit and who are within the court’s jurisdiction.
Objection overruled.