On appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the County of Union.
For the appellant, Eugene J. Kirk.
For the respondent, Jerome Alper & Alper and Samuel B. Friedman.
Before Justices Parker, Donges and Colie.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DONGES, J. Defendant appeals from a judgment against him entered in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the County of Union, in a suit on a contract for the purchase of a set of books known as "Progress of Nations." It is admitted that defendant ordered the books. Although defendant's brief asserts that defendant refused to accept delivery of the books, the uncontroverted fact appears to be
that delivery was made at defendant's home and he subsequently sent the books back to plaintiff, and was advised that they could not be accepted and were held for defendant.
The grounds of appeal are four in number.
The first is designed to review alleged rulings on evidence and lists twelve questions and answers, but fails to raise properly any point for consideration. The name of the witness or witnesses is not stated. Booth v. Keegan, 108 N.J.L. N.J.L. 538; 159 A. 402; Terminal Cab Co. v. Mikolasy, 128 N.J.L. 275, and cases cited.
Other objections are raised to the failure of the state of case to conform to the plain requirements of the rules of this court, rules 155 and 156. However, we proceed to a consideration of the merits of the appeal.
The second ground of appeal has to do with objections to the admission in evidence of copies of four letters from plaintiff to defendant, and of two letters from defendant to plaintiff. Upon call for production of the original letters from plaintiff to defendant, they were not produced, and being duly proved as having been sent, copies were admissible. The original letters sent by defendant to plaintiff, and not disclaimed by defendant, were admissible. There was no error in this ruling.
The third ground is that there was error in denying defendant's "motion for a directed verdict," and the fourth ground is that it was error to "give judgment for the full amount of the contract when no damages had ...