"The defendant was indicted, in the first count, for endeavouring to make a revolt; in the second count, for confining the captain. Black and two others were separately indicted for the same offences, com­mitted at the same time. The defendant offered to examine Black and the others, and the question as to their competency was submit­ted to the court by the counsel for and against the prosecution. The court admitted the evidence, leaving the credibility of the witnesses to the consideration of the jury. See 1 Chitt. C. L. 493, who cites 2 Hale, 281. 1 Hale, 305. Fost. 247. 2 Camp. 333.

“This cause was argued at the last session of the court, and taken under advisement . . . When this cause was heard at the April term 1818(a), the nature of the proprietary title to the soil of Pennsylvania generally, and to the asserted manor of Springetsburg in particular, was fully examined and discussed by this court; and to the opinion delivered in that case, in relation to those parts of it, we now refer for the purpose of avoiding the unnecessary repetition of the same matter.

“This was an action of account, which, by the agreement of the attorneys, was referred to auditors named by themselves, to examine the accounts of the parties as under the judgment quod computet, with all the powers and rights that would belong to auditors appointed by the court. The auditors reported, ‘that after hearing the parties, and examining the vouchers produced, they award that the plaintiff has no legal demand at present against the defendant.”

“Rule upon the plaintiff to show his cause of action, and why the defendant should not be discharged on common bail. The plaintiff showed as the cause of action, a judgment obtained by him, against the defendant, in the state of New York, on the 13th of February 1804, upon a contract entered into in that state, in August 1801.”