
    The Pierce Publishing Company, Defendant in Error, , v. Hasselgren Studios, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,404.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Continuance, § 31
      
      —when may he granted on motion of court. On an issue as to the existence of a contract, where the only witness produced by the plaintiff testified to a contract, for which the money was alleged to be due, and the only witness produced by the defendant denied this, and there are no other facts or circumstances in evidence to make the testimony of one more credible than the other, the court may on its own motion, over the objection of the defendant, continue the case to give the plaintiff opportunity to call as witnesses certain persons whose names had been mentioned during the course of the trial.
    2. Witnesses, § 316*—when testimony of attorney may he considered. It is not error for the court to rely upon the testimony of an attorney, who is a member of a firm of attorneys, representing a party to an action, where he takes no part in the trial.
    
      (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed April 22, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action in the Municipal Court of Chicago by The Pierce Publishing Company, a corporation, against Hasselgren Studios, a corporation, for money alleged to be dne it from the defendant on advertisements published in plaintiff’s magazine. Trial before the court without a jury and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
    Morris St. P. Thomas and Jacob E. Dittus, for plaintiff in error.
    Gansbergen & Rigby, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Disest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, samo topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Pam

delivered the opinion of the court.  