“This cause (see ante, p. 91.) came on again to be heard at this Term, the respondent having put in a special answer; and upon a special replication thereto, the parties were at issue, and the points both of fact and law were argued at large by Hubbard for the libellant, and by L. Shaw for the respondent . . . The voyage originally undertaken by the ship Jenny, of which William Dorr was master, was a circuitous voyage from Boston to China, and back to the United States.

“This was a suit on a policy of insurance underwritten by the defendants, a corporation established in Connecticut, by a legislative act, and composed of citizens of that state, by which the plaintiff (a citizen of New Hampshire) was insured 3000 dollars on his house, barn, furniture, library, &c. against losses by fire. The defendants had entered a general appearance. A question arose at the bar upon a motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, the defendants not being a corporation in the state where the suit was brought, and the act of 1789, ch.

“Indictment for taking a false oath under the Pension Act of 1st of May, 1820, ch. 51. Plea, not guilty. At the trial a verdict was found against the defendant. Fessenden, for the defendant, made two points of law on a motion in arrest of judgment. 1. That the act did not make the offence perjury in its technical sense, though it affixed to it the same punishment. 2. That the indictment having concluded in the usual form of indictments for perjury, ‘And so the jurors &c. do say, that the defendant did falsely &c.

“This was an action of debt brought upon the bail bond given for the appearance of Oppenheimer, and assigned by the marshal to the plaintiff. See ante, 333. The defendants plead comperuit ad diem. Replication, nul tiel record. The cause was now called for trial before the court, to inspect the record when it was objected by the defendants’ counsel that the cause is not at issue, there being no rejoinder, and the replication giving no day to the defendant to bring the record in. The plaintiff insisted, that the cause was at issue, and referred to the following cases. 2 Selw. 515. 1 Saund.

“This was an action of trespass for seizing, taking, and carrying away, and converting to the defendant’s use, a certain vessel, the property of the plaintiff, called the Hiram. Plea not guilty, with leave to justify. The case, as proved at the trial, was as follows: The plaintiff purchased the Hiram from one De Silver, in February 1819, and obtained a bill of sale of her, which, with her coasting license, was on board at the time of the alleged trespass. The plaintiff hired the Hiram to one Hand, but for how long a time, or upon what terms, did not appear.

“The plaintiff having filed a bill on the equity side of the court, to carry into effect the award and agreement stated in the case between the same parties, Ewing, for the plaintiff, moved for an order that service of the subpoena upon the attorney of the defendants at law should be considered as good service, the defendants being all foreigners, and residing beyond sea. This was opposed by Ingraham, the attorney at law.”

“Ejectment for two hundred and fifty acres of land in Cumberland county. The plaintiffs’ title commenced with a Blunston’s license, dated the 17th of February 1734—35, granted to John Calhoun to settle and improve two hundred acres of land on Robert Dunning’s spring, next below James Dunning, to be bounded on the upper side by James Dunning, and on the lower by Ezekiel Dunning, and on the east and west by the barrens, to be surveyed to him on the common terms.

“Bill on the equity side of the court, setting forth that John A. Holt, by his last will, devised to his wife all his real estate during her life, and after her death, he directs that the said real estate shall be let out for a yearly rent, to be paid to his daughter during her life, and after her decease, that the said estate should be sold at public auction by his executors, and that the proceeds thereof should be divided amongst his grandchildren, share and share alike, except that his grandson Michael Cooper should have two shares.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court, in the name of the postmaster general of the United States, upon a bond given to the postmaster general by the defendants, with condition that the defendant Ustick, who had been appointed postmaster at Burlington, should well and truly execute the duties of the said office; and once in three months, and oftener if, required, render accounts of his receipts and expenditures, as postmaster, to the general post office, in the manner prescribed by the postmaster general; and should pay all the moneys that should come to his hands for po

"The defendant was indicted, in the first count, for endeavouring to make a revolt; in the second count, for confining the captain. Black and two others were separately indicted for the same offences, com­mitted at the same time. The defendant offered to examine Black and the others, and the question as to their competency was submit­ted to the court by the counsel for and against the prosecution. The court admitted the evidence, leaving the credibility of the witnesses to the consideration of the jury. See 1 Chitt. C. L. 493, who cites 2 Hale, 281. 1 Hale, 305. Fost. 247. 2 Camp. 333.