“Case for an infringement of certain patent rights, granted to the plaintiff. There were two counts on two distinct patents in the declaration, but the first was the only one relied on at the trial, being on a patent for ‘an improvement on the double speeder for roping cotton,’ &c. The cause was tried on the general issue. The patent was dated the 3d of April, 1819, and the specification annexed to it, contained a very minute description of the double speeder as improved by the plaintiff, under distinct articles.

“Assumpsit with the common money counts. The defendant pleaded in bar of the action the statute of limitations of the State of New-York, where the contract was made, to which the plaintiffs demurred. The question raised in the present case, is whether the limitation act of the state, where a contract is made, shall govern the decision of this court, sitting in another state, in which judicial proceedings are instituted for the purpose of enforcing the contract.”

“Debt for the penalty of 500 dollars against the defendant, master of a coasting vessel, for suffering the locks and fastenings, put on the hatches of the vessel, by an inspector of the customs, to be broken, contrary to the 54th section of the Revenue Collection Act of 2d of March, 1799, ch. 128. The defendant pleaded nil debet, on which issue was joined.

“Indictment on the second and third sections of the Act of 20th of April, 1818, ch. 86, against the slave trade. There were various counts in the indictment, but that which was principally relied on, was for causing a certain vessel, called the Science, to sail from the port of New York, for the purpose of procuring negroes, &c. from Africa, to be transported and held, sold and disposed of as slaves. At the trial the cause turned principally on questions of fact.”

“This was an action on the case for an infringement of a patent granted to Edward Treadwell on the 181h of May 1826, for an improvement in the art of manufacturing biscuit and sugar, bread. The schedule describes the whole instrument, viz. the circular knives, dotters, clearers, the holes and the niches for connecting the cakes and clearing away the loose dough, as in the former patent.

“The prisoner was tried upon five indictments, three of which were for counterfeiting the notes of the bank of the United States, of different denominations, and the other two for having in his possession bank notes of different denominations, engraved and printed after the similitude of notes issued by the said bank, with intent to use them in forging the notes of the said bank. Upon the trial of these indictments, the following points of evidence were ruled by the court. .1.

“This was an ejectment to recover two hundred and fifty acres of land in Union county. The lessors of the plaintiff claim as the representatives of John Snyder. The title of the plaintiffs was as follows: a warrant dated the 17th of March 1762, which, after reciting a prior order of the proprietor to the surveyor general, dated ------ 1754, to survey two thousand acres for Conrad Wiser, which had not been complied with; directs the said quantity of land to be surveyed for the heirs and representatives of the said Conrad Wiser, then deceased.”

“This was an action of covenant for nonpayment of a certain sum of money, the consideration for a tract of land lying in the state of New York.

“This case resembles that of M’Culloch vs. Girard, which was tried at the October sessions of this court in 1822, (see ante 289,) the present plaintiff having been one of the persons on whose account Mr Jones made, the contract with the defendant. The few points of difference between the two cases are totally immaterial to the point decided in this cause, and therefore are not stated.

“A rule was granted upon the mayor of the city of Philadelphia, on the motion of the prisoner, to show cause why he should not deliver to the prisoner certain bank notes of the bank of the United States, alleged to be genuine, to the value and amount of $1550, which the mayor had taken from the person of the prisoner upon his examination upon a charge of forgery. The mayor appeared by counsel to show cause, and admitted the notes to be genuine; but denied the right of the court to interfere in a summary way in a matter of this kind.”