"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 a bill filed by the plaintiffs, claiming to have a copyright in a book entitled ‘the Pharmacopoeia of the United States of America,’ against the defendants, for an alleged infringement of their right, by publishing a work under the title of ‘the American Dispensatory,’ by John R. Coxe; in which work, the bill charges, is incorporated nearly the whole of the matter contained in the plaintiffs’ work.

“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.”

“Error to the district court. It appeared from the agreement of counsel, that a suit was brought in the court below, by the United States against Joseph and Thomas Lea, and Perrit their surety, upon a duty bond, upon which a judgment was rendered, and the amount of it was paid.by the surety, to whom the bond was surrendered for his reimbursement out of the estate of Joseph Lea, in the hands of the defendants, voluntary assignees of all his estate.

“This was an appeal from the district court, where the appellant filed a petition praying to be paid the sum of $408. 10 cents, due to him for a certain number of water casks, and two barrels of vinegar, furnished the brig President, at Baltimore, where she then lay, in October 1821, as part of her outfits. The brig having performed a voyage from Baltimore, after the above articles were furnished, returned the following year to the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled for sailors’ wages, and sold under a sentence of the district court.

“This was an action on the case for not keeping in safety Tom, a fugitive slave, the property of the plaintiff, who was delivered to him by the plaintiff’s agent and attorney, to be safely kept in the gaol at Doylestown. Upon the plea of the general issue, it was proved that the defendant was the clerk or deputy of the sheriff of Bucks county, in which the gaol was, at the time of the transaction which forms the subject of this suit.

“The jury were sworn to try four actions, on four different bills of exchange, drawn in New York, on Liverpool and London, by Jacob Barker, indorsed by the defendant’s intestate, and purchased in New York.by the treasurer of the United States for the use of the United States. Two of the bills were dated the 30th of July 1814, one for £8046. 6s. 5d. sterling, and the other for £10,000 sterling. They were protested for non-acceptance on the 25th of November in the same year, and for non-payment on the 27th of January 1815.

“The declaration is in the name of Henry Darst and two others of the same surname, and sets forth, that ‘they, by the name and description of Henry Darst & Co. and the defendant, entered into an agreement under their respective hands and seals,’ Thereof profert is made, whereby they agreed to sell to the defendant certain lands in the state of Ohio, for which the defendant was to pay a certain sum of money, for the breach of which contract this suit is brought. Pleas, covenants performed, and non est factum.”