¶1.Opinion by
¶2This was a judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. The affidavits are not well drawn but they exhibit a substantial defense to $60.00 of plaintiff’s claim.
¶3To distinguish this case, in principle, from Simpson v. Karr, 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 8, and cases there cited, requires a refinement of criticism that we are not disposed to exercise in an endeavor to sustain a judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. If the affidavit and supplemental. affidavit of defense state facts, and we must now assume that they do, the case should have gone to a jury as to all of the plaintiff’s claim, except $88.00 and interest thereon.
¶4The assignment of error is sustained and the judgment reversed, without prejudice, and a procedendo awarded, with leave to plaintiffs to move for judgment for $88.00, with interest thereon and costs, if they so desire, and they may go to trial for the balance of their claim.