“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. But for this mistake, that opinion would have been given, and if it had been unfavourable to the defendant, his counsel would have had the benefit of an exception; and if favourable to him, the jury could not have failed to give him a verdict. 2. The court ought to have admitted evidence of the declarations of the settlers, that they had sold their possessions to the persons who came successively into possession. They cited 2 Serg. and Rawle, 407.”