“The libel filed in this case in the Court below, alleges a forfeiture of the merchandise therein set forth, by reason of a false entry of the goods at the custom-house. It is founded upon the 22d section of the act of the 20th April, 1818. Upon the trial a bill of exceptions was taken, and the case comes before this Court upon a writ of error.”

“This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, who was Collector of the District of New-York, to recover a portion of a forfeiture which the plaintiff claimed under the collection law, as informer . . . It appeared on the trial, that the brig Rambler from St. Bartholomew’s, was on the 7th day of March, 1812, boarded, and a man put on board of her at Sandy Hook by the revenue cutter Active, under orders from the Collector to send vessels from St. Bartholomew’s bound for Amboy to New-York.

“Error to the District Court for the Southern District of New-York. The plaintiffs declared in the Court below, upon a bond executed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, on the 22d day of August, 1816, in the penal sum of 5,000 dollars, with the following condition. ‘The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas the above bounden Lieut. James W. Lent, junr., has been appointed a Battalion Quarter-Master in the corps of artillery, and has accepted said appointment. Now if the said Lieut. James W.

“Error to the District Court of the Southern District of New-York. The plaintiffs brought an action of debt in the Court below againt the defendant as Sheriff of the city and county of New- York, for the escape of one Joseph Wilson, a prisoner committed to his custody on a capias ad satisfaciendum, at the suit of the plaintiffs. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiffs on the 4th of May, 1819, issued a ca.

“Comfort Sands, a bankrupt, and one of the defendants in this cause, has interposed a plea in abatement to the jurisdiction of this Court, alleging, that all the matters and causes of complaint in the plaintiff's bill of complaint contained, belong exclusively to the Judge of the District Court of the Southern District of the state of New-York.”

“The appellees instituted this suit in the High Court of Chancery, in order to recover back certain warrants, and the interest received upon them, also warrants for about 5000 acres of land, which their testator had obtained for his services during the war, and which had been unfairly purchased from him by the appellants, for the trifling consideration of £20, at a time when, the testator was intoxicated with liquor, and incapable of contracting.

“This was an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Chancery. The bill was filed by the appellees, to be relieved against a judgement at law, on a bond payable the 2d of March 1784, executed by the appellees for £113: 16: 4, being the amount of a tract of land, mortgaged by a certain David Davenport to the appellant, to secure a debt of £40: 18: 7, with interest from the 19th of August 1756, and sold under a decree of the County Court of Hanover, and purchased by the appellee James the younger, for whom the other appellee was security.” 

“In this case, P. T. Shelton & Co., consisting of P. T. Shelton, and Walter Shelton, being indebted to the United States for duties, made a voluntary assignment of all their effects for the payment of their debts. Walter Shelton, was in possession of some estate in his private character, which he afterwards conveyed for the payment of his private debts. The United States have filed their bill, claiming priority out of the social fund, and have also, in a supplemental bill, claimed priority out of the private fund. The controversy is, between the creditors under the first and last deed.

“This cause came on to be re-tried, under the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, to award a ven. fac.. de novo. See 3 Wheaton. When the cause was called for trial, the defendant objected, that the judgment of this Court upon a former trial, was still in force, and unreversed; as no writ of error had been sued out, to remove the record of that judgment into the Supreme Court; without which, that Court would not take jurisdiction of the cause.”

“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.”