#### A. C. Huston v. John H. Boltz et al.

Sales—Balance on Account—Recovery of—Solicitor of Orders—Evidence.

In an action to recover the price of a lot of cigars, this court, in view of the evidence, declines to interfere with a judgment for the plaintiffs.

[Opinion filed September 11, 1889.]

Appeal from the County Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard Prbndergast, Judge, presiding.

Mr. C. M. Hardy, for appellant.

Messrs. Marston, Au&ur & Tuttle, for appellees.

*450 Per Curiam.

An opinion was rendered in this case which is found under the title of Boltz et al. v. Huston, 23 Ill. App. 579. The judgment of the Oounty Court was then reversed and the case remanded. On a new trial in that court there was a finding and judgment for appellees in conformity with the opinion of this court. Appellant, believing new and material facts were proven in the last trial, brings the case to this court again for review. Careful examination of the record fails to reveal any material change in the evidence. Any further review of the law or facts would be mere repetition of what is already set forth in 23 Ill. App. 579. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.