“Indictment against the prisoner for an assault on one Neil Lemon with a dangerous weapon, and with an intent to kill, founded on the act of Congress of 1825, ch, 276, § 22. The indictment contained several counts, in some of which the offence was alleged to be committed on the high seas, and in others in Massachusetts Bay. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was convicted of the offence by the jury.

“Libel of seizure against an open boat and her lading, seized in fact at Eastport on navigable waters for a violation of the laws of the United States, on the 4th of January 1828, by the collector of the district of Passamaquoddy. At the trial in the District Court, a decree of condemnation was pronounced against the boat and all her lading, except 7 barrels of flour, 2 barrels of pork, and 13 bags of meal, for default of any claim.

 “Assumpsit by the plaintiff as payee of a bill of exchange drawn at Philadelphia, by one Edmund Roberts, on the defendant, at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The bill was dated 12th of May, 1827, for $500 payable to the plaintiff or order, at four months, for value received ‘being the amount of one share and interest in the cargo of the brig Mary Ann.’ The declaration contained three counts. 1. On the bill as an accepted bill. 2. For money had and received. 3. For money laid out and expended. Plea, the general issue.

“Suit upon the trustee process of Massachusetts by statute of 1794, ch. 65. The only questions in the cause arose upon the answers of the trustees; and were argued by Dunlap (District Attorney) for the United States, and by Fletcher and Rand for the trustees. . . The case turns wholly upon the answers of the trustees.

“Edward Spaulding, in July, 1785, made his will, and after providing for the payment of his just debts and funeral expenses, devised as follows. “The residue, &c., the real as well as personal interest, I give and bequeath unto my beloved wife, Audery Spaulding, for and during her natural life, to be improved for her benefit, and providing for my children, relying on her goodness and discretion in that particular, as she may think proper. In case my said wife A.

“Bill in equity. The cause came to a hearing upon the bill, answers, depositions, and exhibits; and was argued by Sumner and Webster for the plaintiff, and by William Sullivan for the respondents. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, as follows . . . The questions, then, presented to the Court for decision, ultimately resolve themselves into the following points.

“Petition to file a bill for the purpose of obtaining a review of a decree, rendered in this Court at a former term, in the case of Edward Dexter vs. Thomas Arnold. (See ante, Vol. III. p. 284.) . . .

“Action for a malicious prosecution. The plaintiff produced the record, of the indictment in the mayor’s court of this city for larceny, which the grand jury returned ignoramus. The plaintiff proved that the defendant, Mountford, put into the hands of a constable of the city a warrant to arrest the plaintiff on a charge of larceny, issued by Mr Badger, one of the aldermen. A search warrant for the goods supposed to have been stolen had previously been delivered to him, which proved ineffectual in the search.

“This case came before the court upon, a rule to show cause, why the judgment against Sullivan should not be set side. The facts of the case are the following: In the year 1800, an amicable action of account render, was entered in this court by the plaintiff, against the defendants. The agreement on the part of the defendants was signed by Strawbridge, and a judgment quod computent was entered on the 21st of October, in the same year. The declaration states the plaintiff to be a citizen of Georgia, Strawbridge a citizen of Pennsylvania, and Sullivan a citizen of Massachusetts.

“Indictment for serving on board a vessel employed in transporting a slave from the island of St Thomas, to the island of Cuba; contrary to the act of the 10th of May 1800., See Vol. III. of the Acts of Congress, page 382, section 2.