“Rule upon the plaintiffs to show their cause of action, and why the defendant should not be permitted to appear on common bail, having been discharged as an insolvent under the laws of the state of Maryland. The case was as follows: Swift, being a debtor to the United States in a considerable sum, applied to the secretary of the treasury to be discharged as an insolvent, upon surrendering all his estate to the United States, agreeably to the provisions of the act of congress.

“This was an indictment containing four counts. First, for making a revolt; second, for piratically and feloniously running away with the vessel and goods to the value of $50; third, for laying violent hands on the captain to hinder his fighting in defence of his vessel; and fourth, yielding up the vessel to a pirate.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court by the United States against the- defendants, upon a bond given by them to the United States, in the penalty of $5000. The district attorney, at the return term of the writ, entered up a judgment by default for the penalty, without assigning breaches, or calling for a plea, and issued a fieri facias for that sum, endorsed ‘$3373.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court against the defendant, master of the Placidia, a foreign vessel, to recover the penalty of $500, under, the fifty-seventh section of the duty law, 1 Story’s Laws, 624, for an alleged disagreement between the cargo on board and that reported in the manifest; there being found concealed on board twenty kegs of white lead more than were mentioned in the manifest. The jury found a verdict stating.

“Seabry brought an ejectment in this court against Ward, and is also plaintiff in an injunction bill to stay waste. The counsel for Ward, after stating that a bill of discovery was intended to be filed in reference to the land in controversy, moved that service of the subpoena upon the solicitor of Seabry, who resides in the state of New York, should be deemed sufficient . . .

“Rule to show cause why an exoneretur should not be entered on the bail piece, the defendant having given special bail, and having been duly discharged on the 13th of the present month under the insolvent law of this state. The writ in this suit issued in June, returnable to this term.

“This is an action for money had and received, to recover the sum of $6141, on the following case: on the 7th of May 1822, H. D. Watkins and Michael Doran borrowed from the defendants, the sum of $10,000, at respondentia, upon the specie, goods, &c. laden, or to be laden on board the ship Adriana, whereof Thomas Dixey was master, bound on a voyage from Philadelphia to Canton, and at and from Canton back to Philadelphia, at a premium of fourteen per cent. The bond is in the common form; but upon it is indorsed a memorandum, signed by H. D.

“This cause came on to be re-tried, under the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, to award a ven. fac.. de novo. See 3 Wheaton. When the cause was called for trial, the defendant objected, that the judgment of this Court upon a former trial, was still in force, and unreversed; as no writ of error had been sued out, to remove the record of that judgment into the Supreme Court; without which, that Court would not take jurisdiction of the cause.”

“Indictments for the murder of Edward Selfridge, on the high seas, on the 28th of August, 1826. Plea, not guilty. After a verdict of guilty, Jarvis and Dunlap, counsel for the prisoner, moved in arrest of judgment, and also for a new trial, because no copy of the indictment was furnished two days before the prisoner’s arraignment and pleading, according to the statutes of 1790, eft. 9, § 29. The motions were argued at length by them, and replied to by Blake, District Attorney, for the United States.”

“The present is a joint indictment against the prisoners for murder [onboard the schooner Fairy out of Boston]. They have severally pleaded not guilty. And a motion has now been made in writing, in behalf of one John D. White, otherwise called Charles Marchant, that he may be tried separately; and this he claims, as a matter of right. The motion is resisted on the part of the District Attorney for the United States, who utterly denies, that there exists any such right in law; and the parties are now before us upon the mere matter of right.