
    Efthymoa Tountas, Defendant in Error, v. Antonius Deligiannis, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,773.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Payment, § 29
      
      —when finding as to payment of wages sustained by the evidence. In a suit for wages where the defense was that plaintiff had been paid all that was due him for wages earned before a certain date, and defendant introduced in evidence a written receipt and acknowledgment executed by the plaintiff to a company of which the defendant was a partner, purporting to show plaintiff was paid hut plaintiff claimed he did not receive payment, held, that a finding for plaintiff was sustained by the evidence, it appearing that the written acknowledgment and receipt was executed to release plaintiff’s claim against the partnership at the time of its dissolution but not as against the defendant who continued the business.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Rufus F. Robinson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 20, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Eftkymoa Tountas against Antonins Deligiannis and Nicholaos Deligiannis to recover a sum claimed to be due for wages. The affidavit of merits averred as a defense that the sum of $500 had been paid to plaintiff in cash for his wages earned before a certain date. The case was discontinued as to Nicholaos and the papers in the case amended accordingly. Prom a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $783.20, Antonins Deligiannis brings error.
    Rose, Symmes & Kirkland, for plaintiff in error; Robert J. Nordhold, of counsel.
    George M. Weichelt, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Appeal and erp.ok, § 1410*—when findings on questions of fact should not he disturbed. The findings of a jury, or of a trial judge without a jury, should not be set aside by a reviewing court unless they are clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.  