“This was a bill inequity, the object of which was, to obtain satisfaction out of the separate estate of John Innes Clarke, Esq. deceased, of a debt alleged to be due from said Clarke, and Messrs. James Monroe, Samuel Snow, and Benjamin Monroe, who survived the said Clarke, but had become insolvents under the Rhode-Island act.”

“The plaintiff is an inhabitant of Batavia in the island of Java, and the bill is brought to recover against the executors of Clarke the amount of a bill of exchange drawn in behalf of the owners of the ship Patterson, by Benjamin Monroe, their agent at Batavia, on a mercantile house in Amsterdam for 21,438 guilders. The bill of exchange was dated 3 Nov. 1806, payable at nine months sight, was presented and protested for non-acceptance, 30 December, 1807, and was presented and protested for non-payment, 4 Oct. 1808.”

“This is an action brought upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant, on the 10th of May 1811, at St. Barts, for value received there, in favour of the plaintiff, on himself, at Philadelphia, 90 days after sight, which was regularly noted for non-acceptance, and protested for non-payment. This action was brought on the 4th of May 1812; to which the defendant pleaded in bar, his discharge, under a law of this state, passed on the 13th of March 1812, for the relief of insolvent debtors; obtained provisionally on the 23d of April, and finally on the 29th of May 1812.

“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 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.

“These causes came before the court upon rules to show cause why the proceedings in both should not be stayed, and the causes dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and why the writ of inquiry, and all proceedings under it, in the first case, should not be quashed.

“This is an appeal from a decree of the district court.

“The defendants, merchants, residing in Philadelphia, purchased of the plaintiff, a merchant, residing in Baltimore, in the year 1817, a parcel of goods, for the price of which this suit is brought, and the declaration is for goods sold and delivered. At the same time, or soon after, the defendants gave their two notes of hand for the debt so contracted, dated in Philadelphia. The defendants were afterwards discharged from all their debts under the insolvent law of Pennsylvania, and obtained their certificate as the act directs.

“Action of assumpsit by the president and directors of this company upon a note of hand, dated the 3d of September 1817, made by T. Burr, payable to defendants, one hundred and twenty days after date, negotiable at the bank of the plaintiffs, where it was discounted. On the 3d of January 1818 the note was regularly protested, according to the provisions of the act of incorporation of the state of Maryland.

“The plaintiff having filed a bill of discovery on the equity side of the court, in relation to a certain lot of ground, for the recovery of which an ejectment is now depending in this court, at the suit of the, lessee of Sebring; the solicitor of the plaintiff in equity, moved the court for an order, that service of the subpoena on the attorney of the plaintiff at law, should be considered as good service. The ground of the motion was, that the plaintiff' at law resides at New York, and cannot be personally served with process in this district.”