“This was an action on two policies; one on the Monongahela Farmer, and the other on her cargo, from New-York to Gibraltar; the former a valued, and the latter an open policy. The vessel sailed on the voyage insured, and was seized by two Spanish privateers, in the Gut of Gibraltar, and carried into Algesiras, where attempts were made to condemn her cargo, but without success; the cargo consisting of articles in general contraband of war, but within the exceptions of the treaty between Spain and the United States.

“This was a policy effected by the plaintiff, for all persons interested, on goods on board the Hibberts, at and from Havana to New, York, to the amount of ten thousand dollars. The vessel and cargo were taken by a British ship of war; and it appearing, that the vessel and cargo belonged to British subjects, that they had been captured and carried into the Havana, and there proceeded against, she was ordered to be delivered up to the original owners, on salvage.

“This action was brought on two policies of insurance, dated March and May 1806, on the ship Romulus, and on her freight, both valued: the former at and from New-York to Havana, and back again to New-York (a). On her return she was captured by a British privateer, the captain of which assigned, as the cause of the capture, that war was either declared, or would soon take place, between Great Britain and the United States. All the hands were taken out of the Romulus, but the captain, the mate, and a boy; who, under a prize-master and hands, were sent to Halifax.

“Rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail-bond, the defendant having been discharged under the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, passed in 1790 and 1798. This law only discharges the person from imprisonment or arrest, in any of the cases of creditors, returned as such by the debtor.”

“A verdict having been rendered in this case, at April Sessions, 1807, and a new trial awarded, the cause now came on again to be tried. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff, in a certain sum of money, was, in September, 1804, discharged under the insolvent law of this State.

“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.”

“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.

"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."