#### C. Henning & Sons v. Ella Williams.

1. Bill of Exceptions—Should not Omit Matters that May Have Affected the Result.—Where an examination of the record reveals that an account book introduced in evidence is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions and the court is not able to say that the contents of the book were not important enough to materially affect the result, the judgment can not beheld to be against the weight of the evidence.

Assumpsit, on a contract of sale. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1897.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 24, 1897.

Meek, Meek & Cochrane, attorneys for appellant.

Edward J. Walsh, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of assumpsit, the propriety of the judgment obtained in which depends almost entirely upon disputed questions of fact, concerning which the evidence was conflicting.

An examination of the record reveals that an account book introduced in evidence is not incorporated in the bill of exceptions.

We are not able, from an examination of the testimony, *200to say that the contents of this book were not so important as to materially affect the result, and consequently can not know that, upon the evidence presented to the court below, the conclusion there reached was incorrect.

The omission of the contents of this book from the record is urged by appellee as a reason why the judgment should be affirmed.

To this no satisfactory reply has been made.

Perceiving in the record no error warranting a reversal of the judgment, it is affirmed.