#### Louis Rosenfeld, Defendant in Error, v. Nathan Pomerantz and Harry Pomerantz, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 18,533.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal court of Chicago, § 26 * —sufficiency of statement of facts for review. A statement of facts signed by the trial judge which consists of a statement of the evidence is not such a statement of facts as is contemplated by the Municipal Court Act.

2. Trial, § 295*—when propositions of Jaw must be submitted. Propositions of law and findings of facts submitted to the court after entry of judgment and after a writ of error has been sued out may be refused by the trial court.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Feed C. Hill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 14, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Louis Rosenfeld against Nathan Pomerantz and Harry Pomerantz to recover wages earned by plaintiff while in the employ of defendants. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for one hundred and fifty-three dollars, defendants bring error.

Shaeffer & Kompel, for plaintiffs in error.

Israel Cowen, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice F. A. Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.