“These causes came before the court upon the following case agreed.

“The jury having found in favour of the plaintiff, see 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 580, the defendant now moved the court for a re-trial of the issue upon the following grounds: 1. That the jury, before they had agreed on a verdict, ate and drank at the expense of the plaintiff in whose favour they found, without the leave of the court. 2. That one of the jurymen did not, in reality, agree to the verdict, but assented in order to get discharged; and being told that the court would keep the jury together till they did agree.

“Ejectment for a part of a certain tract of land lying in the county of Morris, called the Bog or Fly Meadow. The cause came before the court upon a demurrer to the evidence, taken by the defendant, and joined by the lessor of the plaintiff.

“The court having directed this cause to be docketed at the last term, a motion was now made by the counsel for the plaintiff to remand it to the supreme court of this state, from which it had been removed under the twelfth section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20. The ground of the motion was, that the state of New Jersey being a party to the suit, this court cannot entertain jurisdiction of the cause as to her, and has no power to remand the cause in part, and to retain ft for trial here in respect to the title of Gale, the other lessor of the plaintiff.”

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court, in the name of the postmaster general of the United States, upon a bond given to the postmaster general by the defendants, with condition that the defendant Ustick, who had been appointed postmaster at Burlington, should well and truly execute the duties of the said office; and once in three months, and oftener if, required, render accounts of his receipts and expenditures, as postmaster, to the general post office, in the manner prescribed by the postmaster general; and should pay all the moneys that should come to his hands for po

“This is a bill in equity brought by some of the next of kin of Oliver Barnet, according to the statute of distributions of the state of New Jersey, against the administrator of Elizabeth Barnes, the executrix of the said Oliver Barnet, appointed by the orphan’s court of this state, pending a controversy in that court concerning the validity of the asserted will of the said Elizabeth, and the rest of the next of kin of Oliver, the testator.

“This was a suit on the equity side of the court.