“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 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.

“Bill on the equity side of the court, setting forth that John A. Holt, by his last will, devised to his wife all his real estate during her life, and after her death, he directs that the said real estate shall be let out for a yearly rent, to be paid to his daughter during her life, and after her decease, that the said estate should be sold at public auction by his executors, and that the proceeds thereof should be divided amongst his grandchildren, share and share alike, except that his grandson Michael Cooper should have two shares.

“This was an action of debt brought in the district court, in the name of the postmaster general of the United States, upon a bond given to the postmaster general by the defendants, with condition that the defendant Ustick, who had been appointed postmaster at Burlington, should well and truly execute the duties of the said office; and once in three months, and oftener if, required, render accounts of his receipts and expenditures, as postmaster, to the general post office, in the manner prescribed by the postmaster general; and should pay all the moneys that should come to his hands for po

"The defendant was indicted, in the first count, for endeavouring to make a revolt; in the second count, for confining the captain. Black and two others were separately indicted for the same offences, com­mitted at the same time. The defendant offered to examine Black and the others, and the question as to their competency was submit­ted to the court by the counsel for and against the prosecution. The court admitted the evidence, leaving the credibility of the witnesses to the consideration of the jury. See 1 Chitt. C. L. 493, who cites 2 Hale, 281. 1 Hale, 305. Fost. 247. 2 Camp. 333.

“The court having directed this cause to be docketed at the last term, a motion was now made by the counsel for the plaintiff to remand it to the supreme court of this state, from which it had been removed under the twelfth section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20. The ground of the motion was, that the state of New Jersey being a party to the suit, this court cannot entertain jurisdiction of the cause as to her, and has no power to remand the cause in part, and to retain ft for trial here in respect to the title of Gale, the other lessor of the plaintiff.”