#### Bridget O’Brien, Defendant in Error, v. Peter P. Salerno, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,066.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Appeal and ebror, § 1303 * —when presumed that there was evidence sufficient to sustain finding of court. Where a bill of exceptions recited that it contained “as much evidence as recollected by counsel and court and introduced on the trial,” held that as the bill did not purport to contain allN the evidence the law conclusively presumed that there was evidence sufficient to sustain the finding of the court.

2. Appeal and error, § 1488 * —when judgment on trial By court will not he reversed for improper admission of evidence. A judgment on trial by the court without a jury will not be reversed on account of the court’s improper admission of evidence where there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the judgment, as the court is presumed to have disregarded evidence improperly admitted.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jabecki, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.»

Opinion filed February 7, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Bridget O’Brien, plaintiff, against Peter P. Salerno, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by defendant carelessly and negligently leaving a horse hitched to a wagon untied in the street. From a judgment for plaintiff for six hundred dollars, on trial by the court without a jury, defendant brings error.

Cantwell & Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Farrell & Thompson, for defendant in error.

*

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

Mr. Justice Goodwin

delivered the opinion of the court.