“Debt on five obligations, executed by Joseph Hubbard as principal, and the defendant as surety, for certain sums of money, set forth in the declaration.

“Bill in equity for a fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of a farm, as to the quantity of land. The cause was argued by Randolph for the plaintiff, and by Hunter and Robbins for the defendant, at the last term; and the opinion of the Court was now delivered, as follows . . . This cause was argued at the close of the last November Term of this Court, and derives some of its interest and importance from the character of the parties, who are both clergymen, and the nature of the bill, which contains charges of fraud and misrepresentation.

“Bill in equity to establish the right of the plaintiffs to a priority of use of the waters of Pawtucket river, &tc. The cause was argued at great length, at the last term, by Whipple and Webster for the plaintiffs, and by Cozzens and Searle for the defendants, at the last November Term, and continued for advisement to this term when the following opinion was delivered . . .

“This is a bill in equity set down for a hearing upon demurrer.

“This was a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff Bean, against Simon Smith, Ziba Smith, Ahab Smith, Simon Smith, jr. Esther Stone, William Foster, and Elizabeth Foster, wherein he claimed to be paid, out of certain lands in the possession of the respondents, a debt due to him from Simon Smith, one of the said respondents.

“A bill in equity which was set down by consent for a hearing upon the bill and answer. It was argued by Hunter for the plaintiff, and by Randolph for the respondents, upon the point stated in the opinion of the court . . . The intestate, Lewis Rousmaniere, a merchant of Newport, being deeply and fraudulently insolvent, on the 4th of May, 1820, wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, who are merchants in Charleston, S.

“Petition to file a bill for the purpose of obtaining a review of a decree, rendered in this Court at a former term, in the case of Edward Dexter vs. Thomas Arnold. (See ante, Vol. III. p. 284.) . . .

“Edward Spaulding, in July, 1785, made his will, and after providing for the payment of his just debts and funeral expenses, devised as follows. “The residue, &c., the real as well as personal interest, I give and bequeath unto my beloved wife, Audery Spaulding, for and during her natural life, to be improved for her benefit, and providing for my children, relying on her goodness and discretion in that particular, as she may think proper. In case my said wife A.

“This was a bill in equity. The facts were as follows: Peleg Gardner, of South Kingston, by his will, dated the 7th of July, 1817, having given his wife (one of the plaintiffs) a part of his mansion house and the use of one third of his stock &c. for her life, in lieu of dower, made the following devise: ‘I give and devise to my beloved son, Ezekiel W. Gardner, two third parts of all that my Ferry farm, so called, formerly owned by John Franklin, and now in the possession of the said Ezekiel W.

“This action was brought to recover the contents of a promissory note, dated at Providence, &c. given by the defendant to the plaintiff, payable at a certain time, which had elapsed before the suit was brought. The defendant pleaded a discharge under the insolvent act of Rhode-Island, after the note was given and before it became due. To this plea there was a general demurrer and joinder. The cause was shortly argued by Tristram Burgess for the plaintiff, and Robbins for the defendant.”