Appellant was convicted for pursuing the occupation of a retail liquor dealer without having paid the State and county tax therefor, and without having procured a license for said occupation, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $450, and from the judgment of the lower court he prosecutes this appeal. Appellant contends that the court erred in permitting the State to introduce a copy from a book kept in the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue; said copy showing that the appellant paid the internal revenue tax to the Federal government for selling spirituous liquors from July 1, 1893, to June 30, 1894. Mr. J. E. Kauffman testified that he was the present United States Internal Revenue Collector, but was not the United States Inter *319 nal Revenue Collector when the record from which said copy wаs taken was made and entered; that said entries were made by his predecessor; that the course of business in the оffice was for applications for internal revenue licenses to be handed the proper clerk, and thаt the clerk to whom these applications were handed entered the names of the applicants in alрhabetical order in a book kept in the office, and there was placed opposite each name the kind of license applied for, that the list that he had was a correct copy made from that book, which he found in his office when he took charge of it; that he did not make the original entries in the book of which that was a copy, and that he did not know that the defendant had ever paid a United States internal revenue license tax, but that his nаme was on the list of those who had made application for internal revenue license. He also testified thаt this book was required to be kept in his office, and was in his custody. Appellant’s ground of objection, to this testimony was that said copy was not the best evidence, but a copy of the book, and that the book itself should have been produced, but that even the book, if presented, was not admissible, because it was the right of the defendant to be confrоnted with the witnesses against him, and the State should have produced the Internal Revenue Collector to whom the pаyment of the tax was made by appellant. He further objected that there was no proof that the books of the Internal Revenue Collector were correctly kept. The court overruled said objections, and admitted the evidence. Appellant excepted.
The Federal law on the subject of keeping an account shоwing the payment of special internal revenue taxes is found in Section 3240 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, whiсh is as follows: “Each collector of internal revenue shall, under the regulations of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, place and keep conspicuously in his office, an alphabetical list of the names of all persons who shall have paid special taxes within his district, and shall state thereon the time, place and business for which suсh special taxes have been paid.” The book, in this instance, from which the copy was taken, appears to have been kept in accordance with the above article, and, under the rules of evidence on the subject, an examined copy of what said book showed was admissible in evidence. 1 Greenl. Ev.
§ §
91, 485, 508; Coons v. Renick,
Affirmed.