“The court having directed this cause to be docketed at the last term, a motion was now made by the counsel for the plaintiff to remand it to the supreme court of this state, from which it had been removed under the twelfth section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20. The ground of the motion was, that the state of New Jersey being a party to the suit, this court cannot entertain jurisdiction of the cause as to her, and has no power to remand the cause in part, and to retain ft for trial here in respect to the title of Gale, the other lessor of the plaintiff.”

“Per Curiam. The declaration in this case contains two counts. The first is on a bill of exchange drawn by the defendants, in Kentucky, upon Thomas Townley & Co. of New Orleans, in favour of William Bard, or order, payable ten days after sight. The bill, by the procurement of the defendants, was indorsed by William Bard, to Samuel T.

“This is a bill in equity set down for a hearing upon demurrer.

“This was a bill in equity brought by the plaintiff Bean, against Simon Smith, Ziba Smith, Ahab Smith, Simon Smith, jr. Esther Stone, William Foster, and Elizabeth Foster, wherein he claimed to be paid, out of certain lands in the possession of the respondents, a debt due to him from Simon Smith, one of the said respondents.

“A bill in equity which was set down by consent for a hearing upon the bill and answer. It was argued by Hunter for the plaintiff, and by Randolph for the respondents, upon the point stated in the opinion of the court . . . The intestate, Lewis Rousmaniere, a merchant of Newport, being deeply and fraudulently insolvent, on the 4th of May, 1820, wrote a letter to the plaintiffs, who are merchants in Charleston, S.

“Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance upon merchandise on board of the ship Volant, from her port of lading in France, to her port of discharge in the United States. The policy was in the usual form, and the subscription of the defendant was for 1000 dollars. The declaration contained two counts, in one of which the plaintiffs aver a loss by capture, and in the other ask for a return of the premium. The facts were these.

“Assumpsit. This action was brought for the recovery of about $3000, together with the additional damages of two per cent, per month, authorized by the laws of Massachusetts, in cases where any bank shall refuse or neglect to pay its bank-bills in specie on demand. The facts were as follows.

“Ejectment for a part of a certain tract of land lying in the county of Morris, called the Bog or Fly Meadow. The cause came before the court upon a demurrer to the evidence, taken by the defendant, and joined by the lessor of the plaintiff.

“The jury having found in favour of the plaintiff, see 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 580, the defendant now moved the court for a re-trial of the issue upon the following grounds: 1. That the jury, before they had agreed on a verdict, ate and drank at the expense of the plaintiff in whose favour they found, without the leave of the court. 2. That one of the jurymen did not, in reality, agree to the verdict, but assented in order to get discharged; and being told that the court would keep the jury together till they did agree.

“These causes came before the court upon the following case agreed.