“Error to the District Court for the Southern District of New-York. The plaintiffs declared in the Court below, upon a bond executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, on the 22d day of August, 1816, in the penal sum of 5,000 dollars, with the following condition. ‘The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden Lieut. James W. Lent, junr., has been appointed a Battalion Quarter-Master in the corps of artillery, and has accepted said appointment. Now if the said Lieut. James W.

“This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, who was Collector of the District of New-York, to recover a portion of a forfeiture which the plaintiff claimed under the collection law, as informer . . . It appeared on the trial, that the brig Rambler from St. Bartholomew’s, was on the 7th day of March, 1812, boarded, and a man put on board of her at Sandy Hook by the revenue cutter Active, under orders from the Collector to send vessels from St. Bartholomew’s bound for Amboy to New-York.

“The libel filed in this case in the Court below, alleges a forfeiture of the merchandise therein set forth, by reason of a false entry of the goods at the custom-house. It is founded upon the 22d section of the act of the 20th April, 1818. Upon the trial a bill of exceptions was taken, and the case comes before this Court upon a writ of error.”

“This case has been certified into this Court, from the Northern District of this state, under the provisions of the judiciary act the judge of that Court having been the District Attorney by whom the suit was commenced. The question arises upon demurrer to the declaration.

“This is a motion, that the appearance of Fernando Arredondo, one of the defendants, be entered in this Court, for the purpose of removing the cause from the State Court, where it was commenced, pursuant to the act of Congress in such case made and provided . . .

“This was an action of trespass against the defendant, the marshal of this district, for seizing certain teas imported into Philadelphia by Edward Thomson, in the ships Addison and Superior, under an execution at the suit of the United States against said Thompson; to which teas, the plaintiffs asserted a property in themselves.

“Banks, as representative of Hunter, Banks & Co., and North & Co. respectively petitioned the district court (the first in 1796, and the second in 1794,) to be allowed to appeal from the refusal of the auditor of public accounts to admit their respective claims against the commonwealth for the value of some vessels and cargoes impressed into the service of the state by order of the executive early in the year 1781.

“This was an action for the infringement of a patent granted to E. Treadwell, for an improvement in forming and piercing bread, called by him ‘a cracker or biscuit finisher.’ The specification describes the different parts of the machine, amongst which are the circular cutters, the piercers, and the clearers, which cut, pierce, and clear the biscuit at one operation.

“The plaintiffs filed their bill on the equity side of the court setting forth that the plaintiff Ogle is the original inventor of a new and useful improvement in the plough, for which he obtained a patent in the year 1818. That in the year 1824, he, by deed, and for a valuable consideration, assigned and conveyed to the other plaintiff all his exclusive right to the said invention, with the liberty of making, constructing, using, and vending the same toothers to be used, in and throughout the state of Pennsylvania, with a power of attorney for those purposes.

“The defendant was indicted for perjury committed before the commissioners of bankrupts, where, being asked, ‘at what time did you own the brig Abigail, and when did you cease to own her,’ answered, on oath, ‘I cannot tell exactly the time; I believe it was at the latter end of 1799 that I first owned her; I ceased to own her I rather think, in the year 1800.’ Whereas in truth and in fact, the said defendant never did own the said brig at any time during the year 1799, or before or after.