profits made by him on the sale of intoxicating liquors sold without a license, and he cannot recover. Melchior v. McCarthy, 31 Wis. 252; Insurance Co. v. Harvey, 11 Wis. 394; Clemens v. Clemens, 9 Am. Rep. 709; Gregory v. Wilson, 13 Am. Rep. 451; King v. Winants, 17 Am. Rep. 11; Hardy v. Stonebraker, 31 Wis. 647; Griffith v. Wells, 17 N. Y. Com. Law 339.
Bangs & Fisk, for respondent:
Where the record admits of two interpretations, that one which will sustain the ruling of the court below will be adopted. Railroad Co. v. Cowgill, 24 Pac. Rep. 475. Appellant objected to the referee making any rulings whatever, and hence cannot predicate error upon his failure todo so. A party cannot assign that for error which he himself has invited the court to commit. State v. Beaty, 25 Mo. App. 214; Chambers v. Walker, 6 S. E. Rep. 165; Golder v. Mueller, 22 Ill. 527. Objections made before the referee and not renewed before the court, are deemed abandoned. Fox v. Moyer, 54 N. Y. 125; Gill v. Russell, 23 Minn. 362; Railroad Co.,v. Moyer, 17 Atl. Rep. 461. A report of a referee and the rulings of a trial judge will be presumed to be correct until the contrary is shown. West v. Von Tuyl, 23 N. E. Rep. 450. The findings of a court or referee are conclusive as to the facts found, if there is any evidence tending to establish such facts. Runnels v. Moffat, 41 N. W. Rep. 224; Burtel v. Mathias, 24 Pac. Rep. 913; Bank v. Judson, 25 N. E. Rep. 392; Morgan v. Botsford, 46 N. W. Rep. 230; Yocum v. Haskins, 46 N. W. Rep. 1063; Holmes v. Roper, 32 N. Y. S. Rep. 470; Musgrove v. Buckley, 21 N. E. Rep. 1021; Ensign y. Ensign, 120 N. Y. 655. And this rule applies in equitable as well as legal actions. Wells v. Wells, 24 Pac. Rep. 752. The conclusions of a master in matters of fact have every reasonable presumption in their favor. Callahan v. Myers, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177; Wilson v. Railroad Co., 21 N. E. Rep. 1015. No exception will lie to the allowance of a leading question by a referee. O’Neill v. Howe, 31 N. Y. S. Rep. 272. The admission of incompetent or mere cumulative evidence is not prejudicial error where the same facts are established by competent evidence. People v. Latti-
