“A verdict having been rendered in this case, at April Sessions, 1807, and a new trial awarded, the cause now came on again to be tried. The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff, in a certain sum of money, was, in September, 1804, discharged under the insolvent law of this State.

“Rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail-bond, the defendant having been discharged under the insolvent laws of Pennsylvania, passed in 1790 and 1798. This law only discharges the person from imprisonment or arrest, in any of the cases of creditors, returned as such by the debtor.”

“This action was brought on two policies of insurance, dated March and May 1806, on the ship Romulus, and on her freight, both valued: the former at and from New-York to Havana, and back again to New-York (a). On her return she was captured by a British privateer, the captain of which assigned, as the cause of the capture, that war was either declared, or would soon take place, between Great Britain and the United States. All the hands were taken out of the Romulus, but the captain, the mate, and a boy; who, under a prize-master and hands, were sent to Halifax.

“This was a policy effected by the plaintiff, for all persons interested, on goods on board the Hibberts, at and from Havana to New, York, to the amount of ten thousand dollars. The vessel and cargo were taken by a British ship of war; and it appearing, that the vessel and cargo belonged to British subjects, that they had been captured and carried into the Havana, and there proceeded against, she was ordered to be delivered up to the original owners, on salvage.

“This was an action on two policies; one on the Monongahela Farmer, and the other on her cargo, from New-York to Gibraltar; the former a valued, and the latter an open policy. The vessel sailed on the voyage insured, and was seized by two Spanish privateers, in the Gut of Gibraltar, and carried into Algesiras, where attempts were made to condemn her cargo, but without success; the cargo consisting of articles in general contraband of war, but within the exceptions of the treaty between Spain and the United States.

“Action on a policy of goods, on board the Liberty, lost or not lost, at and from Philadelphia to Charleston in South Carolina. The Liberty sailed from Philadelphia, on the 28th or 29th of August 1804, and the policy was signed on the 22d of September 1804. The vessel was found at sea, some time in September, turned bottom upwards. Great part of the cargo was thrown upon an island on the Carolina coast, and was sold, under a sentence of the District Court, and salvage paid thereout.

“This was an ejectment for a tract of land in Berks county. The plaintiff claimed under a warrant to Richard Hockley, and others, dated in 1762, which recited, that a former warrant had issued to the same persons for this land, and had been surveyed, but not returned. He then offered in evidence a survey of this land, rather a re-survey made by one Jacobs, who was not an authorized or commissioned surveyor; in virtue of a letter to him from the Surveyor General, in which he stated; that, at the request of Mr.

“On the 23d of September 1731, an agreement was made between the younger and elder branches of the Penn family; by which the right of government, and soil of the province of Pennsylvania, was confirmed to the younger branch, and' the private rights of the elder branch were confirmed to them. The plaintiff' claims under the elder branch, and lie founds his title on the warrant to William Penn, the second; for 200 acres of Liberty land; to which he was entitled in virtue of his character as first purchaser.

“A rule was obtained at the October term, in 1803, to set aside the nonsuit entered in this cause; and the question now came on to be argued . . . in an ejectment, the plaintiff must show, and it is enough for his purpose, if he does show a right of entry; or, in other words, a right of possession. If he prove twenty years’ possession, or the seisin of his ancestor, and a descent cast, it is in general sufficient, prima facie, unless the defendant show a better right.

“Rule for a new trial; the jury having found, contrary to the charge of the Court, which laid down, as the rule for estimating the damages, the loss which the plaintiff had sustained by the misconduct of the defendant, in violating his orders. The jury have given only the principal sum due, without interest; have allowed the defendant his commissions, though he claimed none; and have rated the exchange at par, when it was higher. Besides which, they have said, that the plaintiff shall not have costs.”