“This is an appeal from a pro forma decree of the district court, which dismissed the libel of the appellant, surgeon on board the Mercury, for salvage. The libel sets forth, that the ship sailed from Philadelphia to Calcutta in the year 1809, where she took in a valuable cargo, and on her return voyage, was, on the 8th of May 1810, when near the island of Madagascar, captured as prize by a French national frigate.

“The plaintiffs, about eighty or one hundred in number, assert themselves to be the next of kin, on the paternal side, to Charles White, who died intestate in the city of Philadelphia some time in the month of January in the year 1816. The intestate was one of the numerous French neutrals, as they were called, who were deported from Nova Scotia in the year 1756 by order of the British government. The bill alleges that he was the son of Charles White, who died, leaving two sons, Francis and the intestate, and four brothers and two sisters, the ancestors of the plaintiffs.

“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 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.

“Assumpsit on a policy of insurance of 2500 dollars on the schooner Warren, at and from Philadelphia to Alvarado, valued at 2500 dollars. Loss averred to be total by perils of the seas. 2. Count, on a policy of 1200 dollars on the freight on board of the same vessel, valued at 1200 dollars. Loss averred to be total in like manner. 3. Count, money had and received. Plea, the general issue.”

“This was a writ of error from the District Court of Maine. The action was brought by the United States as indorsees of a promissory note made by the defendants at Eastport on the 10th of February, 1826, whereby for value received they promised to pay the president, directors, and company of the bank of Passamaquoddy or order, three months after date, the sum of twenty-three hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents; and afterwards the bank, by its cashier, indorsed the same to the United States.

“This case comes before the court upon a writ of error to the district court. It was an action of debt, brought in that court in the name of the postmaster general of the United States against the defendant, as one of the sureties of Charles Rice, postmaster at Trenton.

“This case comes before the court upon a motion to take the bill for confessed, the subpoena having been returned served upon Cadwallader Evans, one of the defendants, who has not appeared and filed his answer within three months after the day of appearance, and after the filing of the bill. It appears by an affidavit, that the other defendant resides out of this district, and has not been served with process.”

“Rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. See this case ante 159. The grounds for the new trial were, 1. That the presiding judge, in delivering the charge to the jury, stated, that the land in question did not lie within the bounds of the purchase made from the Indians by the treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, contrary to the real fact; and that, labouring under this mistake, he gave no opinion as to the construction of the act of 1786, which it is admitted applied to the land lying, within that purchase.

“Upon the trial of this cause, the defendant made the following objections to the execution of a commission issued to Hayti:—1. That it appeared; from the deposition taken under this commission, and from the certificate of the persons to whom it was directed, that the deposition of the witness was not committed to writing by him under the sanction of an oath, but was written and signed by him many days before the oath was administered. 2. That the general interrogatory is not answered at all, or even noticed. 3.