
    M’Leod against Johnston.
    Testimony arising after the commencement of an action, is admissible to explain facts occurring before.
    Assumpsit, for money had and received.
    Plea, the general issue.
    The plaintiff offered testimony, arising after the commencement of the action, but merely going in explanation of facts which had occurred before the commencement. To this the defendant objected.
   Van Ness, J.

The testimony is admissible.

Slosson, for the plaintiff.

J. Radcliff, for the defendant. 
      
       Vide acc. Danforth v. Culver, 11 Johns. 146; Yea v. Bouraker, 2 Burr. 1099.
     