delivered the opinion of the court.
The question of most importance in this case, arises in regard to the witness, Porter. He was called and testified about the contents of a bill of merchandise, bought of the plaintiffs by Yanosdell & McCoun. He spoke of the difference in the prices charged for similar articles, as appeared from the bill of Yanosdell & McCoun, and the bill which was offered in evidence by Talbott. The bill of Yanosdell & McCoun was not before the witness — was not in court; nor was its absence accounted for. After the witness had testified about the bill of Yanosdell & McCoun, and whilst he was still before the court as a witness, the plaintiffs objected to his testimony in regard to the Yanosdell & McCoun bill, for the reason, that the bill itself should be produced; the court overruled the objection, assigning as a reason, that it came too late.
The testimony of this witness was incompetent; he could not testify as to the contents of the bill of Yanosdell & Mc-Coun ; the bill itself was the evidence by which the witness knew that there had ever been a sale to Yanosdell & McCoun of merchandise by the Filleys ; it gave him the evidence of the sale, the items and the price : these he was called to state. It
The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded,
