#### Albert Pirek, Appellee, v. Frank E. Scott, Appellant.

Gen. No. 22,018.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Assumpsit, Action of, § 89 * —when evidence sufficient to show loan to defendant personally. In an action to recover money loaned *45defendant, which plaintiff claimed was loaned defendant personally, while defendant claimed it was loaned to a company of which he was president and the notes of which plaintiff received, evidence held sufficient to support a finding for plaintiff.

*44Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. J. J. Cooke, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 31, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Albert Pirek, plaintiff, against Frank E. Scott, defendant, for money had and received. From a judgment for plaintiff for six hundred dollars, defendant appeals.

Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, for appellant.

William J. Dillon, for appellee.

*

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.

*452. Witnesses, § 279*—what is admissible to contradict witness. A letter written by a witness which tended to contradict him, held properly admitted.

3. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when improper remarles of counsel are harmless error. In an action to recover money loaned, the act of plaintiff’s counsel in referring to plaintiff as a “poor workingman” is not ground for reversal where, on objection, the word “poor” was withdrawn and it was admitted that plaintiff was not poor.

4. Appeal and error, § 1514*—when error in conduct of counsel is harmless. Where a reference by plaintiff’s counsel to defendant’s witness as a “liar” is objected to and on defendant’s motion is stricken from the record, there is no reversible error.