“This case come before the court upon two rules to show cause, 1. Why the judgment should not be arrested. And 2. Why a new trial should not be granted? 1. In support of the first rule, certain exceptions were taken to the second, third, fourth and fifth additional counts in the declaration. We shall direct our attention principally to the fourth count, because this was the one which the counsel seemed to consider the most faulty.

“This was an action on the case, The declaration contains a great number of counts; but the only two which it is necessary to notice are founded, 1. Upon a bill of exchange drawn by the defendant at New Orleans for $600, upon James Brown & Co. of Philadelphia, in favour of the plaintiff, in the year 1806; and 2. On a promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff in the year 1809; that if the plaintiff would indulge him he would pay the bill, if he should ever be able to do so, with an averment that he did indulge the defendant, and that he was able to pay. Plea, non assumpsit.

“Action on a protested bill of exchange, dated 19th of May 1807, drawn by the defendant, at New Orleans, in favour of the plaintiff, at sixty days after sight, on James Brown & Co. of Philadelphia, for 600 dollars—pleas, 1st, non assumpsit; and 2d, non assumpsit, within six years; and issue joined, with leave to the plaintiff, by the agreement of the parties, to give any legal evidence to prove a new promise, or the inapplicability of the Act of Limitations.

“This case came before the court upon a motion to dissolve the injunction granted on the 24th day of April 1821, and a rule obtained by the plaintiff to show cause why the bill should not be taken pro confesso. The bill was filed with an affidavit and prayer for an injunction in November 1816, soon after the action at law, sought to be enjoined, was brought. It states, in substance, that after the plaintiff had given to the defendant, a Hong merchant at Canton, the notes on which the suit was brought, he placed in the hands of Mr Benjamin C.

In an action for a violation of a patent right, proof that the plaintiffs at a particular time made a specimen of the thing patented, which had not been before seen or heard of by the witness, is prima facie, evidence that it was invented by the patentee.

"Indictment for Treason by levying war against the United States, at Bethlehem, in the County of Northampton. The Prisoner, after a trial that lasted fifteen days, was convicted: whereupon Lewis and Dallas, his Counsel, moved for a new trial on two general grounds. 1st. That there mad been a mis-trial. 2d. That there had not been an unbiased and impartial trial."

“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.