Per Curiam.
The justice, in his supplementary return, refers to, and adopts, as correct and true, the facts stated in the affidavit of Hopkins; and from those-facts it appears, that the plaintiff’s demand below accrued subsequent to the former trial; and arose from the payment of money for the defendant’s use, which could not have been legally set off at the former trial, and so the former trial was no bar. Judgment affirmed.