
    Jeremiah Howell against William D. Hunt and John Roche.
    Charleston,
    May, 1817.
    hei“t“ba¡t SSSt S?ebaKdlTh™|h there was no proof ttatthif was screement to discbyge the. b5n> and a good deÍcíre/S) the
    This was an action by scire facias, under our acts of Assembly, by the plaintiff against the defendant, as bail to the sheriff, of Thomas G. Wait. _ , The bait bond was dated, the 16th August, 1810- and on the 8th September following, the plaintiff _ . gave the defendant, or his bail, the following © 7 7 © note, addressed to his (the plaintiff’s) attorney:
    “ Sir — You will please, on the receipt of this, to discharge the bail in the suit brought against Thomas G. Wait, as it is now certain that I was misinformed in respect to his leaving the State soon, and of course ought not to have required, it. I should call on you personally, but am very unwell.”
    It did not appear in evidence whether this note had been presented to the plaintiff’s attorney or not. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant some time after the date of this note; and on that judgment this scire facias is brought. A verdict was found for the plaintiff and a new trial is now moved for, on the ground that the bail was discharged by the letter aforesaid.
    The case was tried before Mr. Justice CohocJc, at Charleston, in May Term, 1814.
    
      ? ^nSon^of SíendS? Va6 i,aii!10tthe ‘"attér will be discharge <*>•
    
      J. P. White, for the motion,
    
      J. B. White, contra.
   Cheves, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The letter contains, in substance, a very uneT1^003! acknowledgment of an agreement to dis-the bail, and, in execution of this agreement, the letter is addressed to the plaintiff’s attorney, to grant the discharge. Very slight circumstances will often discharge bail. If the plaintiff take a confession of judgment, and give time to the defendant; without giving notice to * the bail, it will discharge the bail. (15 East, 618, Thomas vs. Young.)

It has been contended that bail cannot be released but by an instrument under seal; but this argument has been supported by no authority. I believe none can be found, and I think it is as little founded on principles of authority. The Court is unanimously and clearly of opinion, the bail was released, and that a new trial ought to be granted.  