“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“Assumpsit. This action was brought for the recovery of about $3000, together with the additional damages of two per cent, per month, authorized by the laws of Massachusetts, in cases where any bank shall refuse or neglect to pay its bank-bills in specie on demand. The facts were as follows.

“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.

“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.”

“Trespass for cutting down 4000 timber trees on lot No. 1, in the fifth division of lands drawn to the right of David Chandler, in the township formerly called New Suncook, now composing the towns of Lovell and Sweden, whereof the plaintiffs and defendants are tenants in common, against the statute of the 15th of March, 1821, ch. 35. Plea, the general issue of not guilty.

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.