“This case comes before the court upon a motion to take the bill for confessed, the subpoena having been returned served upon Cadwallader Evans, one of the defendants, who has not appeared and filed his answer within three months after the day of appearance, and after the filing of the bill. It appears by an affidavit, that the other defendant resides out of this district, and has not been served with process.”

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This is the same case which was formerly before this Court, and is reported ante, vol. 3 p. 454; and by a reference to that report, the form of the patent, the nature of the action, and the subsequent proceedings, will fully appear. The cause was now again brought before the Court upon a writ of error to the judgement of the Circuit Court, rendered upon the new trial, had in pursuance of the mandate of this Court. Upon the new trial, several exceptions were taken by the counsel for the plaintiff, Evans.

“Error to the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania. This was an action for the infringement of the same patent as in the preceding case of Evans v. Eaton, and was argued by the same counsel. The points involved will be found to be fully discussed in the argument of that case, to which the learned reader is referred. The following is the charge delivered to the jury in the Court below, which it is thought necessary here to insert . . . (1.) Such as respect the value of the plaintiff’s Hopperboy. (2.) The time of its discovery. (3.) The kind of machine used by the defendant.

"The defendant was indicted, in the first count, for endeavouring to make a revolt; in the second count, for confining the captain. Black and two others were separately indicted for the same offences, com­mitted at the same time. The defendant offered to examine Black and the others, and the question as to their competency was submit­ted to the court by the counsel for and against the prosecution. The court admitted the evidence, leaving the credibility of the witnesses to the consideration of the jury. See 1 Chitt. C. L. 493, who cites 2 Hale, 281. 1 Hale, 305. Fost. 247. 2 Camp. 333.

“Bill on the equity side of the court, setting forth that John A. Holt, by his last will, devised to his wife all his real estate during her life, and after her death, he directs that the said real estate shall be let out for a yearly rent, to be paid to his daughter during her life, and after her decease, that the said estate should be sold at public auction by his executors, and that the proceeds thereof should be divided amongst his grandchildren, share and share alike, except that his grandson Michael Cooper should have two shares.

“Ejectment for two hundred and fifty acres of land in Cumberland county. The plaintiffs’ title commenced with a Blunston’s license, dated the 17th of February 1734—35, granted to John Calhoun to settle and improve two hundred acres of land on Robert Dunning’s spring, next below James Dunning, to be bounded on the upper side by James Dunning, and on the lower by Ezekiel Dunning, and on the east and west by the barrens, to be surveyed to him on the common terms.

“The plaintiff having filed a bill on the equity side of the court, to carry into effect the award and agreement stated in the case between the same parties, Ewing, for the plaintiff, moved for an order that service of the subpoena upon the attorney of the defendants at law should be considered as good service, the defendants being all foreigners, and residing beyond sea. This was opposed by Ingraham, the attorney at law.”

“This was an action of trespass for seizing, taking, and carrying away, and converting to the defendant’s use, a certain vessel, the property of the plaintiff, called the Hiram. Plea not guilty, with leave to justify. The case, as proved at the trial, was as follows: The plaintiff purchased the Hiram from one De Silver, in February 1819, and obtained a bill of sale of her, which, with her coasting license, was on board at the time of the alleged trespass. The plaintiff hired the Hiram to one Hand, but for how long a time, or upon what terms, did not appear.

“This was an action of debt brought upon the bail bond given for the appearance of Oppenheimer, and assigned by the marshal to the plaintiff. See ante, 333. The defendants plead comperuit ad diem. Replication, nul tiel record. The cause was now called for trial before the court, to inspect the record when it was objected by the defendants’ counsel that the cause is not at issue, there being no rejoinder, and the replication giving no day to the defendant to bring the record in. The plaintiff insisted, that the cause was at issue, and referred to the following cases. 2 Selw. 515. 1 Saund.

“This cause was argued at the last session of the court, and taken under advisement . . . When this cause was heard at the April term 1818(a), the nature of the proprietary title to the soil of Pennsylvania generally, and to the asserted manor of Springetsburg in particular, was fully examined and discussed by this court; and to the opinion delivered in that case, in relation to those parts of it, we now refer for the purpose of avoiding the unnecessary repetition of the same matter.