“Bill to enjoin the defendant from printing, engraving, etching, copying, publishing or selling a. certain historical print of the declaration of independence, which the plaintiff claims to have invented and designed at April term 1819. This case was before the court at April term 1819, and was then dismissed; it having been decided, that, although in patent causes the courts of the United States have jurisdiction when both parties reside in the same state, the same did not exist in cases of copy-right.

“This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, to recover back $10,000 paid by the plaintiffs’ agents to the defendants, as freight, upon certain goods brought in the ship America, from Calcutta to Philadelphia, which the plaintiffs insist were not liable to pay freight . . . Upon the cases cited by the plaintiffs’ counsel, it was remarked, that none of them, except Hutton vs. Bragg, 2 Mass. 339. touch the question of liens, but merely the responsibility of the owners, for an alleged misconduct in the captain.”

“These causes came before the court upon the following case agreed.

“The jury having found in favour of the plaintiff, see 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 580, the defendant now moved the court for a re-trial of the issue upon the following grounds: 1. That the jury, before they had agreed on a verdict, ate and drank at the expense of the plaintiff in whose favour they found, without the leave of the court. 2. That one of the jurymen did not, in reality, agree to the verdict, but assented in order to get discharged; and being told that the court would keep the jury together till they did agree.

“Ejectment for a part of a certain tract of land lying in the county of Morris, called the Bog or Fly Meadow. The cause came before the court upon a demurrer to the evidence, taken by the defendant, and joined by the lessor of the plaintiff.

“Assumpsit. This action was brought for the recovery of about $3000, together with the additional damages of two per cent, per month, authorized by the laws of Massachusetts, in cases where any bank shall refuse or neglect to pay its bank-bills in specie on demand. The facts were as follows.

“Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance upon merchandise on board of the ship Volant, from her port of lading in France, to her port of discharge in the United States. The policy was in the usual form, and the subscription of the defendant was for 1000 dollars. The declaration contained two counts, in one of which the plaintiffs aver a loss by capture, and in the other ask for a return of the premium. The facts were these.

“A bill in equity which was set down by consent for a hearing upon the bill and answer. It was argued by Hunter for the plaintiff, and by Randolph for the respondents, upon the point stated in the opinion of the court . . . The intestate, Lewis Rousmaniere, a merchant of Newport, being deeply and fraudulently insolvent, on the 4th of May, 1820, wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, who are merchants in Charleston, S.

“This was a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff Bean, against Simon Smith, Ziba Smith, Ahab Smith, Simon Smith, jr. Esther Stone, William Foster, and Elizabeth Foster, wherein he claimed to be paid, out of certain lands in the possession of the respondents, a debt due to him from Simon Smith, one of the said respondents.

“This is a bill in equity set down for a hearing upon demurrer.