The defendant objected to the reading in evidence against him, a part of the paper writing, without reading the whole. His Honor overruled the objection and allowed the plaintiff to read the part he desired, but informed the defendant that he was at liberty to read the other part, but that he could offer it only as his own independent evidence. There is error. It is a universal rule that where any document is produced and read by one party, the whole is to be read, if the adversary require it; for unless the whole be read, there can be no certainty as to the real sense and meaning of the entire document. So it is a general rule, that whenever a party makes a statement or admission, whether oral or written, which is afterwards used against him as evidence of the stated or admitted fact, the whole of the statement or declaration must be received. 1 Stark, 872. A party who reads an answer, makes the wThole of it evidence, and if upon exceptions taken, a second answer has been put in, the defendant may insist upon having that read to explain what he swore in the first. B. N. P., 237. 1 Stark, 291.

There is nothing in this case, to take it out of these general principles. If the part of this writing, offered in evidence by *69 the plaintiff, tended to show that the defendant got the brandy, the itemized account against the plaintiff, in the same instrument, which the plaintiff refused to read, was evidence of a set off to that amount, or what was of more importance, it was evidence tending to show that the defendant regarded the plaintiff as his debtor. At all events, the whole should have gone to the jury together, as the evidence of the plaintiff. The error of his Honor, consisted in holding that the omitted part could only be introduced as the evidence of the defendant.

Venire do novo.