#### Augusta Albrecht et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Joseph Pinger et al., Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 21,202.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Appeal and ebbob, § 1186 * —when question of applicability of instructions uAll not be reviewed. Under a record which consists of mere abstract questions of law and which contains neither evidence nor a certificate of the trial judge as to what it tended to prove, nor anything to determine the applicability of instructions complained of, the Appellate Court will not be justified in reviewing the case unless they can determine, that the instructions are vicious under any and all circumstances.

Error to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles H. Bowles, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 9, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action under Dramshop Act (Hurd’s Rev. St., eh. 43, J. & A. 4600 et seq.), brought by Augusta Albrecht and others, plaintiffs, against Joseph Pinger, and others, defendants. From a judgment against them, plaintiffs bring error.

I. W. Foltz and William C. Dunn, for plaintiffs in error.

Day & Guenther, W. H. Nelms and F. P. Drennan, for defendants in error.

*

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

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.