“This is an action of replevin for seventy-three casks of Teneriffe wine, of the value of $2168. 10 cents. The jury found a verdict(a) for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, upon the following case: On the 1st of June 1825, Beylle &. Co. merchants of Philadelphia, addressed a letter to the plaintiff, a merchant of Boston, requesting him to purchase for them in that city, seventy casks of Teneriffe wine, at one dollar and fifteen cents per gallon, or less, if he could do so, at six months, payable, if possible, in Philadelphia; to which place it was to be shipped.

“The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the facts stated in the following case agreed: The counsel for the parties agree to the following case, which, if required by either, may be turned into a special verdict, subject to the opinion of the court.

“This is a bill to be relieved against a bond and mortgage given by the plaintiff to Putnam Catlin, to secure the purchase money for a tract of land sold and conveyed by the latter to the former. The bill states that on the 17th of April 1815, the plaintiff was in possession of eighty acres of land under an improvement right; on which he had resided for several years, and made many valuable improvements. That about the time above mentioned, Putnam Catlin alleged that he had purchased the large tract which included the above eighty acres of land, of John B.

“This was an action of assumpsit for money laid out, and advanced for the defendant at his request. The facts of the case are stated in the charge to the jury . . . Sometime about the latter end of the year 1811, or beginning of 1812, John Andrews, brother of the defendant, made his appearance in Baltimore, with a power of attorney from the defendant, constituting him his general agent and attorney in the United States, with very extensive powers; and also letters of introduction to sundry merchants of that city, and amongst others, to Luke Tiernan & Co.

"This action was brought to recover a balance of account claimed to be due to the plaintiff, under the following circumstances. The plaintiff was employed to execute certain stone work, in constructing the locks on the Schuylkill canal, for which he was to receive a stated compensation, as was proved by witnesses on the trial. After the work was completed, there was some dispute between the parties as to the quantity of work done and the price; and one of the officers of the company was directed, by one or more of the directors, to make out the account, which he did.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court, upon the official bond given by the defendant, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office, as collector of the internal taxes and duties, in the twelfth district of Pennsylvania, and for collecting and paying over the said taxes and duties. The demand was founded on a statement from the treasury department, of certain uncollected bonds and duties due within this district.

“Action of assumpsit. The court decided that a deposition taken under a rule of court, on twenty-four hours notice, to be read in case of the inability of the witness to attend; could not be given in evidence without proof of such inability, or that the witness lived beyond the distance to which a subpoena could reach, to compel his appearance.”

“This was an action for account render. The pleas were, 1. Never bailiff or receiver; and, 2. Plene computavit. The evidence was the same as was given in the former action of assumpsit, (see ante 514,) with proof of the following additional circumstances.

“Action to recover the balance of an account of sales rendered by the defendant to plaintiff. The case was, the plaintiff, a merchant of New York, entered into a contract with defendant, then residing in Philadelphia, in the year 1818, to furnish him with a large assortment of jewellery, which he was to take from place to place in the United States to sell for the plaintiff, upon a commission of five per cent, on the invoice prices, and one half of what he might sell them for beyond those prices, the same to be in lieu of expenses and all other charges.

“In taxing the bill of costs in this case, the clerk refused to allow to the successful party, any compensation for his own attendance, and for his travelling expenses, because no such allowance was, or is allowed by the laws of the state. He also refused to allow to the party’s witnesses more than fifty cents for every twenty miles travelling, and the same for each day’s attendance; his opinion being, that the act of the 28th of February 1799, is confined to witnesses in criminal cases, who are to be paid by the United States.