#### C. L. Roberts, Appellant, v. Estate of Henry L. Roberts, Appellee.

Gen. No. 5,903.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee county; the Hon. Richard S. Farrand, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

*315Statement of the Case.

Suit on a claim filed by C. L. Roberts against the estate of his father, Henry L. Roberts, deceased, for a balance due on an open account. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the estate, claimant appeals.

This case has been once before in the Appellate Court on an appeal by the estate from a judgment in favor of the claimant, which judgment was reversed and the case remanded in 175 Ill. App. 109.

C. F. Preston, for appellant.

Trusdell, Smith & Leech, for appellee; Adam C. Cliffe, of counsel.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Executors and administrators, § 305 * —questions for jury. In a suit on a .claim filed against an estate for a balance due on an open account, held the question whether a certain written memorandum on which the claimant relies in support of his claim was of any probative force was for the jury.

2. Witnesses, § 41 * —when husband of heir competent witness. On trial of a claim filed against the estate of claimant’s father, held that the husband of an heir who was defending the estate was a competent witness to testify to a conversation with the claimant occurring after the father’s death, for the reason that husband may testify in suits concerning the separate property of his wife.

3. Appeal and error, § 1491 * —when rejection of evidence not material error. In an action on a claim filed against the estate of claimant’s father, rejection of the inventory of the estate offered in evidence by the claimant for the purpose of showing what stock and produce there was on the farm at the time of his father’s death, held not material error for the reason that it had little bearing on the real issue.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number,

Mr. Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.