“Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. See this case ante 159. The grounds for the new trial were, 1. That the presiding judge, in delivering the charge to the jury, stated, that the land in question did not lie within the bounds of the purchase made from the Indians by the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, contrary to the real fact; and that, labouring under this mistake, he gave no opinion as to the construction of the act of 1786, which it is admitted applied to the land lying, within that purchase.

“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.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court, in the name of the postmaster general of the United States, upon a bond given to the postmaster general by the defendants, with condition that the defendant Ustick, who had been appointed postmaster at Burlington, should well and truly execute the duties of the said office; and once in three months, and oftener if, required, render accounts of his receipts and expenditures, as postmaster, to the general post office, in the manner prescribed by the postmaster general; and should pay all the moneys that should come to his hands for po

“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.

“Error to the circuit court for the district of Georgia, in a suit of equity. The bill states that the complainants’ testator and the defendant’s testator, together with three others, viz. Boisfeillet, Du Bignon, and Grand Closmesle, became joint purchasers of the islands of Sapelo, Blackbeard, Jekyll, and half of St. Catharine, on the coast of Georgia; that Dumoussay was the acting partner, and kept all the accounts, &c.

“Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Orleans, in a suit of equity, in which Sere & Laralde were complainants, against Pitot and others, defendants.

“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.