“The declaration is in the name of Henry Darst and two others of the same surname, and sets forth, that ‘they, by the name and description of Henry Darst & Co. and the defendant, entered into an agreement under their respective hands and seals,’ Thereof profert is made, whereby they agreed to sell to the defendant certain lands in the state of Ohio, for which the defendant was to pay a certain sum of money, for the breach of which contract this suit is brought. Pleas, covenants performed, and non est factum.”

“The jury were sworn to try four actions, on four different bills of exchange, drawn in New York, on Liverpool and London, by Jacob Barker, indorsed by the defendant’s intestate, and purchased in New York.by the treasurer of the United States for the use of the United States. Two of the bills were dated the 30th of July 1814, one for £8046. 6s. 5d. sterling, and the other for £10,000 sterling. They were protested for non-acceptance on the 25th of November in the same year, and for non-payment on the 27th of January 1815.

“This was an action on the case for not keeping in safety Tom, a fugitive slave, the property of the plaintiff, who was delivered to him by the plaintiff’s agent and attorney, to be safely kept in the gaol at Doylestown. Upon the plea of the general issue, it was proved that the defendant was the clerk or deputy of the sheriff of Bucks county, in which the gaol was, at the time of the transaction which forms the subject of this suit.

“This was an appeal from the district court, where the appellant filed a petition praying to be paid the sum of $408. 10 cents, due to him for a certain number of water casks, and two barrels of vinegar, furnished the brig President, at Baltimore, where she then lay, in October 1821, as part of her outfits. The brig having performed a voyage from Baltimore, after the above articles were furnished, returned the following year to the port of Philadelphia, where she was libelled for sailors’ wages, and sold under a sentence of the district court.

“Error to the district court. It appeared from the agreement of counsel, that a suit was brought in the court below, by the United States against Joseph and Thomas Lea, and Perrit their surety, upon a duty bond, upon which a judgment was rendered, and the amount of it was paid.by the surety, to whom the bond was surrendered for his reimbursement out of the estate of Joseph Lea, in the hands of the defendants, voluntary assignees of all his estate.

“Rule upon the plaintiff to show his cause of action, and why the defendant should not be discharged on common bail. The plaintiff showed as the cause of action, a judgment obtained by him, against the defendant, in the state of New York, on the 13th of February 1804, upon a contract entered into in that state, in August 1801.”

“This was an action of account, which, by the agreement of the attorneys, was referred to auditors named by themselves, to examine the accounts of the parties as under the judgment quod computet, with all the powers and rights that would belong to auditors appointed by the court. The auditors reported, ‘that after hearing the parties, and examining the vouchers produced, they award that the plaintiff has no legal demand at present against the defendant.”

“This was a suit in chancery, in behalf of Charles Carter (of Shirley,) and others, against Robert Carter of Nomony.

“Upon an affidavit that the defendant had not, until last night, discovered ground for an additional exception to the award; the Court permitted him to file it, saying; though the same reason might not have been a sufficient one to sanction the filing of exceptions originally, after the four days, because then the cause might be out of the reach of the Court; yet, as the cause is depending, an amendment may be made, where the proper foundation is laid for asking the indulgence.”

“Rule to show cause, why the foreign attachment issued in this case, should not be dissolved.