#### William H. Brown & Company, Defendant in Error, v. H. F. Hisgen, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,475.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Municipal Court of Chicago, § 26 * —what omissions render statement msufficient. On a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago, a document certified by a judge of that court to be a “Statement of facts appearing upon the trial * * * and all questions of law involved * * * and the decisions of the court upon all such questions of law,” held neither “a correct statement of the facts appearing on the trial” nor “a correct stenographic report of the trial,” within the meaning of the Municipal Court Act, sec. 23, cl. 6 (J. & A. ¶ 3335), where it appears that such statement merely contains the testimony of witnesses in narrative form without a statement of the questions of law involved or the decisions of the court thereon, and where it does not appear that the evidence recited was all the evidence heard or proffered at the trial.

2. Municipal Court of Chicago, §26 * —when insufficient statement stricken. On a writ of error to review a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago, where a document purporting to be a “Statement of facts appearing upon the trial” does not comply *466with the provisions of the Municipal Court Act, sec. 23, cl. 6 (J. & A. ¶ 3335), requiring to authorize such review that the trial judge sign and place on file either “a correct statement of the facts appearing on the trial,” or “a correct stenographic report of the trial,” a motion by appellee to strike will be allowed by the Appellate Court, for the reason that such a document presents nothing for review.

*465Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Raffebtt, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Alarmed.

Opinion filed December 6, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by William E. Brown & Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against H. F. Hisgen, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.

Victor A. G. Murrell, for plaintiff in error.

Litzinger, McGurn & Reid, for defendant in error.

*

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

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.