after stating the case. We concur in the ruling of the court that no sufficient grounds are furnished in the facts of the case to sustain any one of the exceptions. There was no evidence to authorize the finding the errors and overcharges mentioned in the first exception, nor of the failure to deliver to the defendant the evidences of debt, for the aggregate of which the new note was given, referred to in the third exception. Proof was made of the correctness of every charge contained in the account for 1878, upon the personal recollection of the witness, and the book containing the articles entered was used only to refresh his memory, and not as original evidence. Nor do we see any reasonable objection to the reference to the written memorial of the dealings between the parties, whether it is examined by the witness or the articles are separately called to his attention. It could hardly be expected of an unaided memory to recall the particulars of which it consists. 1 Greenl. Evi. § 436; State v. Cheek, 13 Ired., 114.
The eleven bales of cotton are credited to the defendant in the first exhibit, at a value in no manner impeached, and which must, therefore, be assumed to be correct.
The exceptions are founded upon a misconception of the legal effect of the allegations contained in the answer. They are not evidence for the defendant, and his .denials only put upon the plaintiff the necessity of proof. The plead-*192jugs are looked to, for the purpose of eliminating issues of controverted facts, but are not admissible as evidence, upon the trial of those issues. Jackson v. Love, 82 N. C., 405.
Upon an examination of the answer, we' are not able to determine whether the validity, or amount, of the claim set out in the statement of the second cause of action, is disputed. The sixth article pronounces the second allegation of the complaint to be untrue, and if this be understood as applying to the second cause of action, it is a denial. If it means the allegations thus numbered in the statement of the causes of action, there is no such denial, as in the one case the controverted averment of non-payment, and in the other, that of the time when the indebtedness becomes due, are alone put in issue. But, assuming the denial, the referee’s report fully establishes the correctness of the claim.
There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.
No error. Affirmed.