
    Fred Kuhlen, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago Athletic Association, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,226.
    (Not to he reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John D. Tubnbaugh, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed March 31, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Fred Kuhlen against Chicago Athletic Association, a corporation, to recover sixty-five dollars as wages due the plaintiff from the defendant, and for ten dollars attorneys’ fees. The statement of- claim alleged that plaintiff was employed from month to month and that he was wrongfully discharged. The defense was that plaintiff was discharged for cause. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.
    Plaintiff in error urges: That the finding of facts by the court is contrary to the evidence that the court erred in admitting improper evidence on the part of plaintiff and in refusing proper evidence offered by defendant; and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial and in entering judgment.
    CrAnn, Peaks & Towhlbv, for plaintiff in error.
    William Bebda, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Veis. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Pbesiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Master and servant, § 82 —when written declarations of agent of employer inadmissible. In an action to recover wages where the defense was that plaintiff had been discharged for cause, a letter signed by an agent of defendant stating that plaintiff’s services were satisfactory and that he was considered honest, industrious and reliable, held improperly admitted in evidence as an admission of defendant, where there was no affirmative evidence establishing the agency of the person writing it other than the declaration of the agent.

2. Evidence, § 177 —declarations of agent. Declaration of an.'' agent to be admissible against his principal must be of his own ^ knowledge and not a mere expression of opinion.  