“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.

“This was a suit in chancery, in behalf of Charles Carter (of Shirley,) and others, against Robert Carter of Nomony.

"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."