“Bill in equity. The cause came to a hearing upon the bill, answers, depositions, and exhibits; and was argued by Sumner and Webster for the plaintiff, and by William Sullivan for the respondents. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, as follows . . . The questions, then, presented to the Court for decision, ultimately resolve themselves into the following points.

“Assumpsit. This action was brought for the recovery of about $3000, together with the additional damages of two per cent, per month, authorized by the laws of Massachusetts, in cases where any bank shall refuse or neglect to pay its bank-bills in specie on demand. The facts were as follows.

“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 taking a false oath under the Pension Act of 1st of May, 1820, ch. 51. Plea, not guilty. At the trial a verdict was found against the defendant. Fessenden, for the defendant, made two points of law on a motion in arrest of judgment. 1. That the act did not make the offence perjury in its technical sense, though it affixed to it the same punishment. 2. That the indictment having concluded in the usual form of indictments for perjury, ‘And so the jurors &c. do say, that the defendant did falsely &c.

“This was a suit on a policy of insurance underwritten by the defendants, a corporation established in Connecticut, by a legislative act, and composed of citizens of that state, by which the plaintiff (a citizen of New Hampshire) was insured 3000 dollars on his house, barn, furniture, library, &c. against losses by fire. The defendants had entered a general appearance. A question arose at the bar upon a motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, the defendants not being a corporation in the state where the suit was brought, and the act of 1789, ch.

“This cause (see ante, p. 91.) came on again to be heard at this Term, the respondent having put in a special answer; and upon a special replication thereto, the parties were at issue, and the points both of fact and law were argued at large by Hubbard for the libellant, and by L. Shaw for the respondent . . . The voyage originally undertaken by the ship Jenny, of which William Dorr was master, was a circuitous voyage from Boston to China, and back to the United States.

“Libel of seizure founded on the Slave Trade Act of 20th of April 1818, ch. 86; the act of 22d March 1794, ch. 11; and the act of 10th May 1800, ch. 51. At the trial the only count, which was sustained by the evidence, was founded on the first section of the act of 1800, ch. 51.

“Assumpsit on a bill of exchange by the plaintiff, as indorsee, against the defendants, as indorsers. The bill was drawn by one James Franklin on E. F. Green, London, for £200 sterling, payable to one Patterson, or order, in ninety days after sight. The bill was indorsed by Patterson in blank, and by a course of negotiation became the property of the bank of Passamaquoddy, and was indorsed by the cashier thereof in behalf of the bank, and came to the possession of the plaintiff by a subsequent indorsement.

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.

“Trespass for cutting down 4000 timber trees on lot No. 1, in the fifth division of lands drawn to the right of David Chandler, in the township formerly called New Suncook, now composing the towns of Lovell and Sweden, whereof the plaintiffs and defendants are tenants in common, against the statute of the 15th of March, 1821, ch. 35. Plea, the general issue of not guilty.