
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
    JAN. 1806.
    Usher v. Sibley.
    Where the defendant had given notice' of a discount, and1 at the trial sub-r stantiated it to an amount exceeding the plaintiff’s demand, and the plaintiff thereupon suffered a nonsuit, it was adjudged that he was inti-tied so to do ; though it appeared the jury had agreed on their verdict,which was ready to be declared in court, and that verdict was known-to the plaintiff.
    Motion to set aside a nonsuit. Assumpsit on á promissory1 note1.Defendant pleaded general issue, and gave notice of a discount. Af.-ter adducing evidence on the tried of the general issue, the plaintiff moved for leave to suffer a nonsuit; which was granted. The mo-fion in this court was founded on this circumstance, that the jury bad agreed on their verdict before the motion was made to suffer á nonsuit; and that it was known at the bar, although the jury had not delivered in their verdict, that" the defendant’s disconnt had been allowed, and the Balance appearing due to' him, after extinguishing plaintiff ’s demand, was given by the verdict.
    Bailey, in support of the motion ; Griggs', contra.
    
   7th January.

The court,

all the judges present, refused to set aside the nonsuit. The plaintiff may, at any time before the vér'-dlct is delivered in court, suffer a nonsuit. The discount law con. iiot be construed to deprive him of this right. See 3 vol. 387. Wilson v. Murphey, S. P.

Motion refused;  