“Indictment against the prisoner for an assault on one Neil Lemon with a dangerous weapon, and with an intent to kill, founded on the act of Congress of 1825, ch, 276, § 22. The indictment contained several counts, in some of which the offence was alleged to be committed on the high seas, and in others in Massachusetts Bay. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and was convicted of the offence by the jury.

“This was a libel against the schooner La Jeune Eugenie for being engaged in the slave trade. By an act passed by the Congress of the United States on the 2d of March, 1807, the importation of slaves into any port of the United States was prohibited after the 1st of June 1808; the time limited by the constitution of the United States, beyond which slaves could not be imported.

“This was a writ of error from the judgment of the District Court. The original action was assumpsit for money bad and received, brought by the United States against the defendant in error, as administrator of the estate of Col. John L. Tuttle, deceased. The defendant pleaded, 1. The general statute of limitations of Massachusetts, (substantially like the statute of 21 Jac. ch. 16, § 3,) to personal actions; 2. the statute of Massachusetts, limiting suits against executors and administrators to four years after the acceptance of the trust; 3.

“This was an action of assumpsit brought in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, against the defendant, as the maker of two promissory notes, both dated at New York, on the 22nd of March, 1811, for the sum of 771 dollars and 86 cents each, and payable to the plaintiff one on the 1st of August, and the other on the 15th of August, 1811. The defendant pleaed his discharge under ‘An act for the benefit of insolvent debtors and their creditors,’ passed by the legislature of New York, the 3d day of April, 1811.

“Assumpsit on a policy of insurance of 2500 dollars on the schooner Warren, at and from Philadelphia to Alvarado, valued at 2500 dollars. Loss averred to be total by perils of the seas. 2. Count, on a policy of 1200 dollars on the freight on board of the same vessel, valued at 1200 dollars. Loss averred to be total in like manner. 3. Count, money had and received. Plea, the general issue.”

“This cause was tried at the last term, and the facts, as they appeared at the trial, are reported in the former report, page 172. A motion was afterwards made for a new trial, and was argued at the present term, by Loring for the plaintiff, and Webster for the defendants . . . The bill of sale was in their joint names; the ship’s register, and the oath taken by Ohl at the custom-house, all establish the same fact.

“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 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.

“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.

“Bill in equity. The cause came to a hearing upon the bill, answers, depositions, and exhibits; and was argued by Sumner and Webster for the plaintiff, and by William Sullivan for the respondents. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, as follows . . . The questions, then, presented to the Court for decision, ultimately resolve themselves into the following points.