“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This is the same case which was formerly before this Court, and is reported ante, vol. 3 p. 454; and by a reference to that report, the form of the patent, the nature of the action, and the subsequent proceedings, will fully appear. The cause was now again brought before the Court upon a writ of error to the judgement of the Circuit Court, rendered upon the new trial, had in pursuance of the mandate of this Court. Upon the new trial, several exceptions were taken by the counsel for the plaintiff, Evans.

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This was an action for the infringement of the same patent as in the preceding case of Evans v. Eaton, and was argued by the same counsel. The points involved will be found to be fully discussed in the argument of that case, to which the learned reader is referred. The following is the charge delivered to the jury in the Court below, which it is thought necessary here to insert . . . (1.) Such as respect the value of the plaintiff’s Hopperboy. (2.) The time of its discovery. (3.) The kind of machine used by the defendant.

“This was an action of debt, commenced by the United States, in the Court below, against the defendants in error, J. Kirkpatrick and others, as the obliges of a bond, given by them to the United States, on the 4th of December, 1813, conditioned for the true and faithful discharge of the duties of the office of Collector of direct taxes and internal duties, by Samuel M.

“Error, to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania. This was an action by the plaintiff in error, against the defendant in error, for an alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s patent right to the use of his improved hopper-boy, one of the several machines discovered, invented, improved, and applied by him to the art of manufacturing flour and meal, which patent was granted on the 22d January, 1808. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave the notice hereafter stated.

“Error to the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in error instituted a suit in the circuit court for the district of Pennsylvania against William Crammond, which, by the agreement of the parties, and other order of the court, was referred to arbitrators. An award was made in favour of the plaintiffs, and a judgement nisi was entered on the 20th of May, 1805. Exceptions were field and overruled; and a judgement was finally entered on the 15^th of May, 1806.