“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.

“Error to the District Court of Louisiana. This was a suit brought by petition, according to the course proceedings in Lousiana, by Webb, the defendant in error, against Nicholls, the plaintiff in error, upon a promissory note, dated the 15th of January, 1819, made by one Fletcher, for the sum of 4880 dollars, payable to the order of Nicholls, at the Nashville Bank, and endorsed by Nicholls, by his agent, to Webb. The answer of the defendant below denied such a demand, and notice of non-payment, as were necessary to render him liable as endorser.

“Indictment for taking a false oath under the Pension Act of 1st of May, 1820, ch. 51. Plea, not guilty. At the trial a verdict was found against the defendant. Fessenden, for the defendant, made two points of law on a motion in arrest of judgment. 1. That the act did not make the offence perjury in its technical sense, though it affixed to it the same punishment. 2. That the indictment having concluded in the usual form of indictments for perjury, ‘And so the jurors &c. do say, that the defendant did falsely &c.

“This was a suit on a policy of insurance underwritten by the defendants, a corporation established in Connecticut, by a legislative act, and composed of citizens of that state, by which the plaintiff (a citizen of New Hampshire) was insured 3000 dollars on his house, barn, furniture, library, &c. against losses by fire. The defendants had entered a general appearance. A question arose at the bar upon a motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, the defendants not being a corporation in the state where the suit was brought, and the act of 1789, ch.

“This cause (see ante, p. 91.) came on again to be heard at this Term, the respondent having put in a special answer; and upon a special replication thereto, the parties were at issue, and the points both of fact and law were argued at large by Hubbard for the libellant, and by L. Shaw for the respondent . . . The voyage originally undertaken by the ship Jenny, of which William Dorr was master, was a circuitous voyage from Boston to China, and back to the United States.

“Libel of seizure founded on the Slave Trade Act of 20th of April 1818, ch. 86; the act of 22d March 1794, ch. 11; and the act of 10th May 1800, ch. 51. At the trial the only count, which was sustained by the evidence, was founded on the first section of the act of 1800, ch. 51.

“This was a bill in equity. The facts were as follows: Peleg Gardner, of South Kingston, by his will, dated the 7th of July, 1817, having given his wife (one of the plaintiffs) a part of his mansion house and the use of one third of his stock &c. for her life, in lieu of dower, made the following devise: ‘I give and devise to my beloved son, Ezekiel W. Gardner, two third parts of all that my Ferry farm, so called, formerly owned by John Franklin, and now in the possession of the said Ezekiel W.

“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.