“These causes came before the court upon the following case agreed.

“The jury having found in favour of the plaintiff, see 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 580, the defendant now moved the court for a re-trial of the issue upon the following grounds: 1. That the jury, before they had agreed on a verdict, ate and drank at the expense of the plaintiff in whose favour they found, without the leave of the court. 2. That one of the jurymen did not, in reality, agree to the verdict, but assented in order to get discharged; and being told that the court would keep the jury together till they did agree.

“Ejectment for a part of a certain tract of land lying in the county of Morris, called the Bog or Fly Meadow. The cause came before the court upon a demurrer to the evidence, taken by the defendant, and joined by the lessor of the plaintiff.

“Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance upon merchandise on board of the ship Volant, from her port of lading in France, to her port of discharge in the United States. The policy was in the usual form, and the subscription of the defendant was for 1000 dollars. The declaration contained two counts, in one of which the plaintiffs aver a loss by capture, and in the other ask for a return of the premium. The facts were these.

Indictment for making a false declaration as to the employ­ment of a vessel in the cod fisheries, contrary to the act of Congress of the 29th of July, 1813, ch. 34, §§ 7 and 9.

“This was an indictment for piracy against the prisoner Thomas Smith, before the Circuit Court of Virginia, on the act of Congress, of the 3d of March, 1819, c. 76.

“Indictment on the second and third sections of the Act of 20th of April, 1818, ch. 86, against the slave trade. There were various counts in the indictment, but that which was principally relied on, was for causing a certain vessel, called the Science, to sail from the port of New York, for the purpose of procuring negroes, &c. from Africa, to be transported and held, sold and disposed of as slaves. At the trial the cause turned principally on questions of fact.”

“Debt for the penalty of 500 dollars against the defendant, master of a coasting vessel, for suffering the locks and fastenings, put on the hatches of the vessel, by an inspector of the customs, to be broken, contrary to the 54th section of the Revenue Collection Act of 2d of March, 1799, ch. 128. The defendant pleaded nil debet, on which issue was joined.

“Assumpsit with the common money counts. The defendant pleaded in bar of the action the statute of limitations of the State of New-York, where the contract was made, to which the plaintiffs demurred. The question raised in the present case, is whether the limitation act of the state, where a contract is made, shall govern the decision of this court, sitting in another state, in which judicial proceedings are instituted for the purpose of enforcing the contract.”

“Ejectment for land. The cause turned altogether upon the consideration of a clause in the will of Thomas Arnold, and was argued on the following statement of facts, agreed upon by the parties. ‘At the time of the making of Thomas Arnold's will, and also at the time of the testator’s death, Peleg Arnold was under the age of twenty-one years, being the testator’s youngest son. John Arnold was the second son of the testator, and was then over twenty-one years of age; and Thomas Arnold was the testator’s eldest son. These three sons were by different wives.