“Leave having being granted to amend the bill under the intimation of the court at the last term, the plaintiff now filed an amendment to the bill. The amendment in substance stated, that on the day when the first letter of attorney was executed, and before its execution, the plaintiff and Rousmaniere called upon counsel for advice, as to the most effectual mode of giving security to the plaintiff upon the vessel; that Rousmaniere then proposed to give a mortgage of the vessel with a power to sell, or an absolute bill of sale, taking back from the plaintiff a memorandum expressing the purpose for which the bill of sale was executed. But the parties were then advised by counsel, that a power of attorney, such as that, which was afterwards executed, would be as effectual and good security as a mortgage or bill of sale, and would prevent the necessity of changing the ship’s papers at the custom-house, and of the plaintiff’s taking immediate possession of the vessel upon her arrival from sea; and further, that upon the execution of the second letter of attorney, Rousmaniere again expressed his willingness to give any other security upon the schooner Industry, either by mortgage or bill of sale, if, in the opinion of counsel, such mode of security would be safer than such power of attorney; and that Rousmaniere executed both powers with the belief and intention, that they should give the plaintiff as full and perfect security as he could have by mortgage or bills of sale of the property; and the plaintiff so received them. To the bill so amended, the defendants renewed their demurrer, and the cause was set down for a hearing upon the demurrer, and argued at this time.”