“This case, although it comes before the court in the form of a rule to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, is connected with that question by an agreement of the counsel, that the finding of the jury, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question of jurisdiction, should be put into the form of a special verdict, and judgment to be entered thereon, as may be decided on this rule, so as to enable either party to sue out a writ of error to the Supreme Court.

“Action of assumpsit to recover from the defendant $2091, the balance of an account due from the former co-partnership of Lindsay and Tomlinson. The facts of the case, as opened and proved by the defendant’s counsel, were as follow. Lindsay and Tomlinson entered into partnership some time in October 1815, under the firm of Lindsay and Tomlinson, and after contracting with the plaintiffs the debt in question, they dissolved their connection, some time in January 1816, upon the terms that Tomlinson should retain the partnership funds, and pay all the debts due from the concerns. Immediately.

“Indictment for serving on board a vessel employed in transporting a slave from the island of St Thomas, to the island of Cuba; contrary to the act of the 10th of May 1800., See Vol. III. of the Acts of Congress, page 382, section 2.

“This case came before the court upon, a rule to show cause, why the judgment against Sullivan should not be set side. The facts of the case are the following: In the year 1800, an amicable action of account render, was entered in this court by the plaintiff, against the defendants. The agreement on the part of the defendants was signed by Strawbridge, and a judgment quod computent was entered on the 21st of October, in the same year. The declaration states the plaintiff to be a citizen of Georgia, Strawbridge a citizen of Pennsylvania, and Sullivan a citizen of Massachusetts.

“Action for a malicious prosecution. The plaintiff produced the record, of the indictment in the mayor’s court of this city for larceny, which the grand jury returned ignoramus. The plaintiff proved that the defendant, Mountford, put into the hands of a constable of the city a warrant to arrest the plaintiff on a charge of larceny, issued by Mr Badger, one of the aldermen. A search warrant for the goods supposed to have been stolen had previously been delivered to him, which proved ineffectual in the search.

“Petition to file a bill for the purpose of obtaining a review of a decree, rendered in this Court at a former term, in the case of Edward Dexter vs. Thomas Arnold. (See ante, Vol. III. p. 284.) . . .

“Bill in equity. The cause came to a hearing upon the bill, answers, depositions, and exhibits; and was argued by Sumner and Webster for the plaintiff, and by William Sullivan for the respondents. The material facts are stated in the opinion of the Court, as follows . . . The questions, then, presented to the Court for decision, ultimately resolve themselves into the following points.

“Edward Spaulding, in July, 1785, made his will, and after providing for the payment of his just debts and funeral expenses, devised as follows. “The residue, &c., the real as well as personal interest, I give and bequeath unto my beloved wife, Audery Spaulding, for and during her natural life, to be improved for her benefit, and providing for my children, relying on her goodness and discretion in that particular, as she may think proper. In case my said wife A.

“Suit upon the trustee process of Massachusetts by statute of 1794, ch. 65. The only questions in the cause arose upon the answers of the trustees; and were argued by Dunlap (District Attorney) for the United States, and by Fletcher and Rand for the trustees. . . The case turns wholly upon the answers of the trustees.

“This was a bill filed by the plaintiffs, claiming to have a copyright in a book entitled ‘the Pharmacopoeia of the United States of America,’ against the defendants, for an alleged infringement of their right, by publishing a work under the title of ‘the American Dispensatory,’ by John R. Coxe; in which work, the bill charges, is incorporated nearly the whole of the matter contained in the plaintiffs’ work.