#### Dora Holtzman, Defendant in Error, v. Louis Israel, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,193.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Geoegb J. Cowing, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 5, 1915.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Contracts, § 385*—when evidence shows. In an action to recover back money paid under an alleged contract providing that defendant should return the money paid if unsuccessful in the undertaking, evidence held to warrant the jury in finding that the contract was made.

2. Contbacts, § 130*—when evidence does not show guilty knowledge of illegal purpose. In an action for the return of money paid by plaintiff to defendant to procure the discharge of persons then *475about to be tried on a criminal charge, under a contract whereby defendant agreed to return the money if unsuccessful in procuring the discharge of the persons in question, evidence held to warrant the jury in finding that plaintiff did not have guilty knowledge of defendant’s intention to use the money for an illegal purpose.

*474Statement of the Case.

Action by Dora Holtzman, plaintiff, against Louis Israel, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, to recover on a contract by which plaintiff paid defendant four hundred dollars, to be returned in case defendant failed to procure the discharge of persons about to be tried on a criminal charge. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

Louis Greenberg and Martin Connor for plaintiff in error.

McMahon & Cheney, for defendant in error; E. C. Reniff, of counsel.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

*4753. Contracts, § 161 * —when illegal purpose of one party does not invalidate. In an action to recover back money paid by plaintiff to defendant under a contract providing that the money should be returned under certain conditions, it is not a defense to the action that defendant had a private purpose to use the money unlawfully, unless plaintiff knew of such purpose.