“Rule for a new trial; the jury having found, contrary to the charge of the Court, which laid down, as the rule for estimating the damages, the loss which the plaintiff had sustained by the misconduct of the defendant, in violating his orders. The jury have given only the principal sum due, without interest; have allowed the defendant his commissions, though he claimed none; and have rated the exchange at par, when it was higher. Besides which, they have said, that the plaintiff shall not have costs.”

“A rule was obtained at the October term, in 1803, to set aside the nonsuit entered in this cause; and the question now came on to be argued . . . in an ejectment, the plaintiff must show, and it is enough for his purpose, if he does show a right of entry; or, in other words, a right of possession. If he prove twenty years’ possession, or the seisin of his ancestor, and a descent cast, it is in general sufficient, prima facie, unless the defendant show a better right.

“This was an ejectment for a tract of land in Berks county. The plaintiff claimed under a warrant to Richard Hockley, and others, dated in 1762, which recited, that a former warrant had issued to the same persons for this land, and had been surveyed, but not returned. He then offered in evidence a survey of this land, rather a re-survey made by one Jacobs, who was not an authorized or commissioned surveyor; in virtue of a letter to him from the Surveyor General, in which he stated; that, at the request of Mr.

“Rule to show cause, why the foreign attachment issued in this case, should not be dissolved.

“Upon an affidavit that the defendant had not, until last night, discovered ground for an additional exception to the award; the Court permitted him to file it, saying; though the same reason might not have been a sufficient one to sanction the filing of exceptions originally, after the four days, because then the cause might be out of the reach of the Court; yet, as the cause is depending, an amendment may be made, where the proper foundation is laid for asking the indulgence.”

"1. In a prosecution for forgery of bank notes against one, the prosecutor, after laying a foundation by proof for connecting the prisoner with other persons in the general transactions, may give evidence that different parts of the machine employed in the counterfeiting were found in the possession of other persons respectively; but as to the effect of such evidence and the fact, the jury must decide . . . 3. Comparison of hands is not evidence in a criminal case."