“This case came before the court upon a motion to dissolve the injunction granted on the 24th day of April 1821, and a rule obtained by the plaintiff to show cause why the bill should not be taken pro confesso. The bill was filed with an affidavit and prayer for an injunction in November 1816, soon after the action at law, sought to be enjoined, was brought. It states, in substance, that after the plaintiff had given to the defendant, a Hong merchant at Canton, the notes on which the suit was brought, he placed in the hands of Mr Benjamin C.

“Action on a protested bill of exchange, dated 19th of May 1807, drawn by the defendant, at New Orleans, in favour of the plaintiff, at sixty days after sight, on James Brown & Co. of Philadelphia, for 600 dollars—pleas, 1st, non assumpsit; and 2d, non assumpsit, within six years; and issue joined, with leave to the plaintiff, by the agreement of the parties, to give any legal evidence to prove a new promise, or the inapplicability of the Act of Limitations.

“This was an action on the case, The declaration contains a great number of counts; but the only two which it is necessary to notice are founded, 1. Upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant at New Orleans for $600, upon James Brown & Co. of Philadelphia, in favour of the plaintiff, in the year 1806; and 2. On a promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff in the year 1809; that if the plaintiff would indulge him he would pay the bill, if he should ever be able to do so, with an averment that he did indulge the defendant, and that he was able to pay. Plea, non assumpsit.

“This case come before the court upon two rules to show cause, 1. Why the judgment should not be arrested. And 2. Why a new trial should not be granted? 1. In support of the first rule, certain exceptions were taken to the second, third, fourth and fifth additional counts in the declaration. We shall direct our attention principally to the fourth count, because this was the one which the counsel seemed to consider the most faulty.

“The plaintiffs, about eighty or one hundred in number, assert themselves to be the next of kin, on the paternal side, to Charles White, who died intestate in the city of Philadelphia some time in the month of January in the year 1816. The intestate was one of the numerous French neutrals, as they were called, who were deported from Nova Scotia in the year 1756 by order of the British government. The bill alleges that he was the son of Charles White, who died, leaving two sons, Francis and the intestate, and four brothers and two sisters, the ancestors of the plaintiffs.

“This is an appeal from a pro forma decree of the district court, which dismissed the libel of the appellant, surgeon on board the Mercury, for salvage. The libel sets forth, that the ship sailed from Philadelphia to Calcutta in the year 1809, where she took in a valuable cargo, and on her return voyage, was, on the 8th of May 1810, when near the island of Madagascar, captured as prize by a French national frigate.

“Indictment for resisting the execution of a habere facias possessionem issued from this court; returnable to the 11th of April 18221: The writ is set out in the indictment in base verba.

“This case came on upon cross motions to take the bill for confessed for want of an answer, and to dissolve the injunction. The defendant grounded his motion upon an answer sworn to by the defendant at Canton, in April last. It was objected to as an answer properly verified by oath, the only evidence of that fact being the certificate of three persons, witnesses to the signature of the defendant, who swore that they saw the defendant sign the same, and that he swore to the answer according to the laws of China.”

“This case comes before the court upon a motion for an injunction. The plaintiff, by his bill, claims to be the proprietor of ‘an improvement on the horizontal circular plane or wheel, invented by him, for the purpose of gaining power by, applying animal weight to the propelling of boats on water, or to machinery on land;’ which, the bill charges, was secured to him by a patent dated the 17th of November 1819, and that the specification was filed in the patent office on the 13th of April 1818.

“This was an action to recover the freight due for the carriage of a parcel of hides, from Maldonado to Philadelphia, shipped at that port, and deliverable as per bills of lading to A. Curcier of Philadelphia, or to his assigns, he or they paying freight. The declaration contains two sets of counts. One upon a special promise made by the defendant to Mr Von Lengerke, the agent of the plaintiffs, in the following terms: ‘as soon as you shall have adjusted the freight with A. Curcier, I will pay you, if he does not.’ 2.