“This cause came on to be retried at this term. The evidence given at the last term, was again produced, and in addition thereto, a complete record of the proceedings in the Vice Admiralty Court at Halifax, was produced, and read. In it is stated at length, the following papers. A passport from the Spanish Consul, at Charleston, to the plaintiff, 17th February 1799, to go to Laguira, to attend to his concerns there.

“This was an action to recover damages for the invasion of the plaintiff’s patent right to a machine for rounding iron. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant, Kanowrs, was a farmer, and had on his farm, a common tilt or hammer and anvil, worked by water. The plaintiff, a German, and poor; informed Kanowrs, that he had invented a machine for rounding iron; but, from want of funds, had not been able to bring his theory to practice.

“Action of indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received to use of bankrupts, and goods sold and delivered by them. Plea, non assumpsit, and notice to offset. The case was—Anthony & Pleasants, having shipped a cargo of tobacco and flour to John Waring, in Bristol, and intending to ship more; drew bills, as they were permitted to do, on Waring, for two-thirds the cost of those cargoes; which they got the defendants in Philadelphia, to endorse and negotiate for them on the usual commission.

“Rule for a new trial; the jury having found, contrary to the charge of the Court, which laid down, as the rule for estimating the damages, the loss which the plaintiff had sustained by the misconduct of the defendant, in violating his orders. The jury have given only the principal sum due, without interest; have allowed the defendant his commissions, though he claimed none; and have rated the exchange at par, when it was higher. Besides which, they have said, that the plaintiff shall not have costs.”

“A rule was obtained at the October term, in 1803, to set aside the nonsuit entered in this cause; and the question now came on to be argued . . . in an ejectment, the plaintiff must show, and it is enough for his purpose, if he does show a right of entry; or, in other words, a right of possession. If he prove twenty years’ possession, or the seisin of his ancestor, and a descent cast, it is in general sufficient, prima facie, unless the defendant show a better right.