
    Mary Burbank versus Asa Willoughby.
    When a plaintiff recovers less than $13,33 by reason of a set-off, he is not to be limited in his costs, although it appear that the matter of the set-off. might have been given in evidence as payment upon the general issue.
    Assumpsit. The defendant filed as a set-off certain articles delivered, and certain sums paid, to the plaintiff and upon the trial here at this term, proved the delivery ófflhe articles and the payment of the money, by reason of which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1.0, only.
    Quincy for tire defendant,
    moved the court to limit the costs, because the matter of the set-off was in fact a payment.
    
      Bell, for the plaintiff.
   By the court.

It is possible, that the matter of the set-off might have been given in evidence in this case as a payment on the general issue. But the defendant chose to rely upon it as a set-off, and we think be is not now to be h-essd when he attempts to treat it as a payment, in order to limit the costs. The rule, that when the damages are reduced by a set-off, the plaintiff shall have full costs, applies to this case. It has been so decided for-mferly. i Full costs allowed.  