Jo-Do, Inc., employed Gerald H. Hurd, as manager of its used-car lot. During the employment Hurd bought certain jewelry and other personalty and charged it to his employer. Hurd was allowed a drawing account on his salary. Jo-Do, Inc. sued Hurd for an "overdraw" on salary, and for payments it had made on the personalty bought by Hurd and charged to Jo-Do, Inc. Defendant Hurd denied the material allegations of the complaint, and after a trial, the jury returned a verdict for $339.33, although the original complaint sought a judgment for $740.36. The defendant appeals, enumerating error as to the following: 1. There was insufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment. 2. Evidence as to the advance on salary was illegally admitted. 3. Defendant's motion for directed verdict was erroneously overruled. Held:
None of the errors which involve the sufficiency of the evidence is meritorious.
2. The defendant complains that on the trial plaintiff failed to prove his case by the highest and best evidence, which he contends were the books of the company, payments by check and other business records of the company. The court properly allowed oral testimony in evidence as that testimony showed that these transactions were brought to the defendant's attention, and, according to the witness testifying, he not only failed to deny them, but he stated he would pay for them, and the record further shows he was paying on the account. If the defendant had wanted to contest this matter he could have subpoenaed the documents he claims were not produced. The account itself was admitted in evidence; hence there is no error in allowing the testimony here. Harper v. Hammond & Sons, 13 Ga. App. 238 (3) (79 SE 44)
; Smith v. Southern Spring Bed Co., 16 Ga. App. 449
, 451 (85 SE 612
); Booth v. Schmoller & Mueller Piano Co., 32 Ga. App. 35 (3) (122 SE 636)
; Villa Rica Mfg. Co. v. Gen. American Life Ins. Co., 55 Ga. App. 328 (2) (190 SE 49)
; Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Grimes, 99 Ga. App. 774 (2) (109 SE2d 890)
; Hicks v. Hicks, 196 Ga. 541 (3) (27 SE2d 7)
; Mallette v. Mallette, 220 Ga. 401 (2) (139 SE2d 322)
. None of the other enumerations of error is meritorious.