KINDS OF EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE 207 



seller or under his direction, it is necessary for him to pre- 

 sent satisfactory evidence as to the accuracy of the scale. l 

 The testimony of an inexperienced sealer is admissible as to 

 his own scale, 2 and if the parties have agreed that the 

 scaling shall be done by an official sealer not assigned to the 

 particular district where the scaling took place, his scale bill 

 is admissible. 3 Where the evidence is not clear that the 

 parties agreed to accept the scale of a certain party evidence 

 is admissible as to the scale obtained by others; 4 and as a 

 test of an estimate based on a stump scale evidence of a com- 

 parison between an estimate by the same party on another 

 tract and the actual amount cut therefrom is admissible. 5 



The scale bill of one who, by agreement of the parties, 

 measured only a part of the logs sold is admissible as to the 

 part actually scaled, 6 but not as to logs which were esti- 

 mated or averaged and not actually scaled ; 7 and where the 

 record of a joint scale by the parties to a contract of a por- 

 tion of the logs was lost, it was held that a third person's 

 scale of the whole lot was not competent evidence as to the 

 part jointly scaled. 8 A scale of logs made in the woods 

 is admissible to contradict or correct a scale of the same logs 

 made at the mill deck, 9 or a measurement of the lumber 

 sawn from the logs, 10 but a mere estimate, not based upon 

 an actual count or measurement of the logs, is not admis- 

 sible for the purpose of contradicting a scale. u A sealer 

 will not be permitted to contradict his own scale or his 

 original report as to quality. 12 A scale of logs made at a 

 certain time and place will not be accepted as evidence of the 

 amount of logs originally comprising the lot where there has 

 been a transfer of ownership and the logs have been driven a 



1. Atkinson v. Morse, 57 Mich. 276, 23 N. W. 812; Perkins v. Hoyt, 35 Mich. 506; 



Patterson v. Larsen, 36 N. Brunswick, 4. 



2. Thomas v. Conant (Me. 1886) 5 Atl. 533; Busch v. Kilborne, 40 Mich. 297. 



3. Carver v. Crookston Lbr. Co., 84 Minn. 79, 86 N. W. 871. 



4. Soverign v. Mosher, 86 Mich. 36, 48 N. W. 611. 



5. Busch v. Nester, 70 Mich. 525. 



6. Bailey v. Blanchard, 62 Me. 168. 



7. Pratt v. Ducey, 38 Minn. 517, 38 N. W. 611; See Douglas v. Leighton, 53 Minn 



176. 



8. Busch v. Kilborne, 40 Mich. 297. 



9. Peterson v. South Shore Lbr. Co., 105 Wis. 106, 81 N. W. 141; see Day v. Gurraer 



et al., 80 Wis. 362, 50 N. W. 182. 



10. Sigler v. Beebe, 44 W. Va. 587. 



11. Fornettev. Carmichaol, 41 Wis. 200. 



12. Whitman v. Freese, 23 Me. 212. 



