The court reversed the judgment — thinking the book was not evidence to charge Townley where a third person received the goods, unless due proof was made of an authority to receive them for the use of defendant.

They were also of opinion that Egbert was not a competent witness to prove this authority or that the goods were delivered on account of Townley, because his .testimony tended to discharge himself.

Cited in Jones v. Brisk, 3 Hal. 269.