#### Antonio Mennella, for use of Joe Mennella, Defendant in Error, v. Michael Bottigliero, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,117.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 20, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action in garnishment by Antonio Mennella, for use of Joe Mennella, plaintiff, against Michael Bottigliero, defendant, to recover a debt. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

The decision of the court on a former appeal appears in Mennella v. Bottigliero, 191 Ill. App. 574.

Morgan & McFarland, for plaintiff in error.

Blum & Blum, for defendant in error.

*404Abstract of the Decision.

1. Fraud, § 131 * —when evidence is sufficient to support instruction on. Evidence held sufficient to support an instruction on the question of fraud, in garnishment proceedings to recover a debt.

2. Garnishment, § 100*—when evidence is sufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiff. Evidence held sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, in garnishment proceedings to recover a debt.

*

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

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.