#### Frank Williams, Appellee, v. H. W. Moehlman, Appellant.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal fom the Circuit Court of Marion county; the Hon. Thomas M. Jett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 17, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Frank Williams, plaintiff, against H. W. Moehlman,' defendant, in the Circuit Court of Marion *36county, to recover for breach of a contract by which plaintiff agreed to manufacture and defendant to purchase certain ironing boards. From a judgment for plaintiff for $22.50, defendant appeals.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Trial, § 153 * —when weight of evidence for jury. It is the province of the jury, who see the witnesses and hear them testify, to weigh the evidence of the respective parties when the evidence is conflicting.

2. Sales, § 329*—when evidence sufficient to sustain finding that contract was substantially complied with. In an action to recover the contract price of ironing boards manufactured by plaintiff at defendant’s request, where the defense was that the contract was not substantially complied with, and where the evidence was conflicting, evidence examined and held to warrant the jury in finding a verdict for plaintiff.

3. Sales, § 330*—when instruction as to presumption of acceptance of goods correct. In an action to recover the contract price of ironing boards manufactured by plaintiff at defendant’s request, an instruction that if after the completion of the work defendant called and inspected it and accepted part of the goods and agreed to pay for all of it, he is presumed to have accepted all of the work, held correct.

4. Appeal and error, § 1523*—when error in one of series of instructions harmless. The fact that in one of a series of instructions there exists a slight ambiguity is not ground of reversal where appellant’s rights were so fully covered by other instructions that the jury could not have been misled.

5. Appeal and error, § 1474*—when stating of conclusion by witness harmless error. It is not reversible, error to permit a plaintiff to state his conclusion as to whether defendant had made an objection as to the character of goods deliveréd in performance of the contract sued on where such witness also testifies to all *37the conversation which took place at the time when the objection was alleged to have been made.

*36Charles H. Holt, for appellant.

W. A. Mills, for appellee.

*

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

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.

*376. Appeal and error, § 1498 * -—when exclusion of evidence harmless error. It is not reversible error to sustain an objection to questions asked of witnesses where the same witnesses were after-wards permitted to answer similar questions so that the evidence sought to be brought out by the questions was properly presented to the jury.