
    Powrie and Dawson against Fletcher and Phillips.
    
      Charleston District,
    
    1798.
    The private copartner,0'10 ciiimot he set demand of the copartnership.
    MOTION for a new trial.
    This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and de» Uvered, to which the defendants filed a discount, for the amount of a bill for painter’s work, done to the house of Mr. Powric, one of the copartners.
   The jury, contrary to the charge of the presiding judge who tried the cause, allowed the defendants the amount of their demand.

This was a motion for a new trial, which was ordered without argument, and that too without costs ; as the jury did wrong in allowing the discount; the law being very clear, that the private debt of one copartner, cannot be set off against a copartnership demand.

Present, Grimke, Waties and Bay.  