Barth v. Jester Bros.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 222. Continuance; application for, held sufficient; case stated. Appellees sued appellant to recover $250, alleged to have been paid to him by them through mis*268take, and they recovered judgment therefor. The money was paid appellant in discounting a check which he presented at appellees’ bank. Appellant testified that he did not count the money received by him, but handed the same to a third party to count and divide equally between appellant and his partner in business, and that said third party counted and divided it, and that appellant received no part of the $250…