“Suit upon the trustee process of Massachusetts by statute of 1794, ch. 65. The only questions in the cause arose upon the answers of the trustees; and were argued by Dunlap (District Attorney) for the United States, and by Fletcher and Rand for the trustees. . . The case turns wholly upon the answers of the trustees.

“Information or libel of seizure for importing into Boston, from the province of New Brunswick, certain coal, which was not truly goods or merchandise of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the said province, contrary to the act of 15 May 1820, ch. 122, § 3. At the trial, the principal inquiry was, whether the coal was the produce of the province of New Brunswick; and the evidence on both sides was so contradictory, that the question, on whom the burthen of proof rested, became the turning point of the cause.”

“This was a proceeding in the District Court, under the 10th section of the act of 21st of February 1793, ch. 11, to repeal a patent right, granted to the defendant, upon the allegation, that it was obtained surreptitiously and upon false suggestion.

Indictment for making a false declaration as to the employ­ment of a vessel in the cod fisheries, contrary to the act of Congress of the 29th of July, 1813, ch. 34, §§ 7 and 9.

“Indictments for the murder of Edward Selfridge, on the high seas, on the 28th of August, 1826. Plea, not guilty. After a verdict of guilty, Jarvis and Dunlap, counsel for the prisoner, moved in arrest of judgment, and also for a new trial, because no copy of the indictment was furnished two days before the prisoner’s arraignment and pleading, according to the statutes of 1790, eft. 9, § 29. The motions were argued at length by them, and replied to by Blake, District Attorney, for the United States.”

“The question, which comes before us upon a certificate of a division of opinion of the judges of the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, is this, whether two or more persons, jointly charged in the same indictment with a capital offence, have a right, by the laws of the country, to be tried severally, separately, and apart, the counsel for the United States objecting thereto, or whether it is a matter to be allowed in the discretion of the Court.

“The present is a joint indictment against the prisoners for murder [onboard the schooner Fairy out of Boston]. They have severally pleaded not guilty. And a motion has now been made in writing, in behalf of one John D. White, otherwise called Charles Marchant, that he may be tried separately; and this he claims, as a matter of right. The motion is resisted on the part of the District Attorney for the United States, who utterly denies, that there exists any such right in law; and the parties are now before us upon the mere matter of right.

Under the patent act of 21 Feb. 1793, ch. 11, if the patentee has sold out a moiety of his patent right, a joint action lies, by himself and his assignee, for 

“Case for infringing a patent for ‘a new and useful improvement of a spinning frame for spinning cotton,’ invented by Paul Moody, and assigned by him to the plaintiffs. The patent was dated the 17th of January, 1818, and the assignment the 14th of January, 1819.

“Case for an infringement of certain patent rights, granted to the plaintiff. There were two counts on two distinct patents in the declaration, but the first was the only one relied on at the trial, being on a patent for ‘an improvement on the double speeder for roping cotton,’ &c. The cause was tried on the general issue. The patent was dated the 3d of April, 1819, and the specification annexed to it, contained a very minute description of the double speeder as improved by the plaintiff, under distinct articles.