Volume 1 — New Hampshire Reports

THIS was a writ of entry, and was tried here at the last term upon the general issue, when it appeared in evidence, and from the admission of the parties, that James Osgood being seized of the demanded premises in fee on the 11th day of May, 1803, by his deed, duly executed and acknowledged, conveyed them to one Levi Sanborn, who paid him a part of the consideration, and gave a promissory note for the remainder.

<p>THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the support of several paupers alleged to have their settlement in the town of Deering. The question was, whether the paupers were settled in the town of Weare or in the town of Deering; and it was agreed that they were settled in Weare, unless a warning; given by the selectmen of that town in 1784, to one Joshua Wiliet, on whose settlement that of these paupers depended, to depart from that town, was sufficient to prevent the said Joshua from gaining- a settlement there under the statute of 5 Geo. 1, c. 87, § 9.(1) The only tion to the warning was, that it did not appear, either in the warrant or the constable’s return upon it, what time the said Joshua had resided in Weare.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass, for breaking and entering the plaintiffs house and taking and carrying away certain articles of household furniture.

<p>THIS was an action of trespass. The declaration contained two counts. 1. For breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close, cutting his trees, and subverting the soil. 2. For taking, carrying away, and converting Jo the defendants’ own use, six cords of wood belonging to the plaintiff. By the statement of facts upon which the cause was submitted to the decision of court, it appeared that the locus in quo was a public highway in the town of Chesterfield, laid out through the plaintiff’s land in 1801 ; that the defendants were employed by the town to make the highway, and that in making the road they necessarily cut sundry trees, which they afterwards carried away and converted to their ovjn private use.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money had and received, to the plaintiffs use.

<p>Items charged in a book account, within six years, do not take articles charged in the same account more than six years before suit, out of the statute of limitations, unless there are mutual accounts between the parties.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for certain tolls alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, as farmer and renter of tolls, at a certain gate of the New-Hampshire Turnpike in Durham.

THIS was an action of assumpsit-. The declaration contained two counts, one for two hundred fifty three dollars seventy nine cents, money paid, laid out and expended : the other, on an account annexed, amounting to the same sum. The items in the account were for the service of two writs by the plaintiff, as a deputy sheriff, in favor of the defendant, storage of a large quantity of property attached, and for making a schedule of said property in the return on said writs.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for fifteen hundred dollars, money had and received. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and the cause was tried here at February term, 1816.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, in which the plaintiff declared in several counts for the same cause of action.

REPLEVIN against the defendant, for taking and impounding four oxen, three cows, and one bull, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant avowed the taking of the cattle damage feasant. To this avowry the plaintiff filed seven pleas in bar, which closed in issues to the country. A ver-, diet was found for the defendant on all the issues, except the third and fourth.

THIS was a writ of dower, and was submitted, to the decision of the court upon the following agreed statement of facts. Augustus Lund, the demandant’s late husband, by deed of bargain and sale bearing date October 23, 1812, conveyed the demanded premises to James Thornton in fee, and the demandant by the same deed released her right of dower in usual form.

THIS was a writ of entry, in which the plaintiffs demanded possession of an undivided moiety of a tract of land in Litchfield, and counted on their own seizen within twenty years, and a disseizen by the defendants.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the amount of seventeen assessments, made by the plaintiffs on a share in the property, of the corporation, alleged to be owned by the defendant. The cause was tried here April term, 1816, before Smith, C, /., and a verdict taken for the plaintiffs for five hundred and two dollars, subject to be amended, or set aside, according to the opinion of the whole court upon the evidence as reported by the judge.

THIS was an action of covenant broken. The declaration alleged, that said Asa, on 25th December, 1804, by his deed of that date duly executed, and in court to be produced, conveyed to one Mark How, then the plaintiff’s husband, a certain farm, which had before belonged to said Mark, and had been given by him to said Asa, without the privity of the plaintiff, to hold to said Mark, in fee and in mortgage, as collateral security for the performance of the conditions and…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover seventy-eight dollars and fifty cents, for the support of one Isaac Lawrence, a pauper, having his legal settlement in said Nottingham-West, from the 27th December, 1815, to the 24th July, 1816. he being during all that time in close custody upon execution in the gaol in Amherst, in this county, and supplied by tiie plaintiff, the keeper of said gaol.

THIS was an action of trespass. The first count in the declaration alleged, that the defendants, at Francestown, on the 3d day of March, IS 16, with force and arms made an assault upon the plaintiff, and laid hold of, stopped and detained him a long time against his will.

THIS was aii action of assumpsit, upon a promissory note made by Lewis Page and Seth Lyman, and payable to T. M. or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of debt, for a penalty founded on the 3d sec. of the statute of Dec: 16, 1796. entitled “ an act regulating fees.” (1 Laws 132.) The suit was commenced on the 30th March, 1812, and previous to the 10th June, 1813, had been tried on the general issue, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff, and judgment rendered accordingly.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the amount of certain expenses incurred by the plaintiffs for the relief of William Lyon, a pauper, who, as the plaintiffs alleged, had his legal settlement in Acworth. The cause was tried upon the general issue at October term, 1816, in this county, and the only question between the parties was, whether Lyon had his legal settlement in Acworth.

<p>Deeds by which lands are conveyed are to be so construed, if by law they may be, as to give effect to the intention of the parties. Thus, where a husband, seized of land in right offhis wife, conveyed it to a third person for the use of his wife, it was held that the conveyance should be construed to be in trust, and that the legal estate vested and remained ill the third person,</p>

<p>THIS was a writ of dower. The defendant pleaded in bar that John Cass, the plaintiff’s late husband, gave the land in which she demanded her dower to one E. Kimball, under whom the defendant claimed title, and received of the said ¡Kimball other lands in exchange, and that the plaintiff had been endowed of the lands so received by her husband in exchange. The plaintiff replied, that the said John Cass did not give the land in which she demanded her dower, in exchange ; and concluded to the country, and the defendant joined the issue.</p> <p>Upon trial in November term, 1816, in this county, it appeared in evidence that the plaintiff’s late husband, John Cass, in February, 1805, being seized of the land in which the plaintiff now claims her dower, entered into an agreement with E. Kimball, who was seized of a tract of land in New-Hampton, to make an exchange ; in pursuance of which agreement, which was never reduced to writing, John Cass, by a deed in the common form, in consideration of four hundred thirty dollars, “gave, granted, bargained and sold” to Kimball the land mentioned in the defendant’s writ, to hold to him and his heirs : and Kimball, by a similar deed, conveyed the land in New-Hampton to Cass in fee. Both deeds bore date the 23d February. 1805.</p> <p>A verdict was taken for the tenant^by consent, subject to the opinion of the court upon the sufficiency of the evidence to maintain the issue on the part of the tenant; and it was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that the evidence was insufficient for that purpose, the verdict should be set aside and a verdict be entered for the plaintiff. —</p>

THIS was an action of trespass on the case, for erecting and continuing a dam across the river Ammonoosuc, whereby the plaintiff’s lands were overflown and injured. The defendant pleaded in bar a parole submission of the cause of action to arbitrators, and an award made in pursuance of the submission ; but the plea contained no averment that the award had been performed.

CASE, for malicious prosecution in procuring the plaintiff to be indicted for rescuing from the custody of the defendant, a deputy sheriff, one J. C. Wood, who had been arrested by the defendant on the 20th November, 1811, on mesne process, at the suit of one G. Erwin. The cause was tried ip this county at May term, 1815, upon the general issue.

REPORT of referees, on a rule made before a justice of the peace. . Smith brought an action of the case against Kimball, in this county, and at the September term of this court, 1816, recovered judgment. On the 3d of December, 1816, Kimball sued out a writ of review, which was served upon Smith on the 4th of January, 1S17.

THIS was a writ of entry. The defendant disclaimed as to part of the land, and pleaded the general issue as to the remainder. The issue was joined, and on trial here at the last term the following facts appeared in evidence: On the 14th of November, 1814, the plaintiff, by deed of that date, conveyed the demanded premises to one John B. M’Intire, then a minor.

ASSUMPSIT for the keeping of a number of sheep belonging to the defendant. One count was upon a special agreement as to the manner and price of feeding and superintending them ; the other was general for the hay, grain, and labor furnished. The cause was tried here at the last term, upon the general issue. The plaintiffs proved the special agreement declared on.

ASSUMPSIT on a note of hand made by Q. W. Wendell, and payable to Abraham Wendell, or order, in six months, and by the latter endorsed to the plaintiff.

THIS was an action on the case against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Grafton, for taking insufficient: bail on a writ in favor of the present plaintiff against one Samuel Tay. The cause was tried here on the general issue at the last term, and evidence introduced of judgments recovered against Tay, and also against his bail, the executions on both of which were returned unsatisfied.

THIS was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away seventeen tons of hay, belonging to the plaintiff.

CASE against the defendant, for illegally and maliciously rejecting the plaintiff’s vote for governor of this state, at a town meeting in Temple, March 12, 1816, the defendant being moderator of the meeting, and the plaintiff legally entitled to vote.

TRESPASS against the defendant, for seizing and converting to his own use a harness and bells, belonging to the plaintiff. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts. The defendant was a deputy collector, duly appointed under the laws of the United States, over and in the district in which the plaintiff lives.

THIS was a writ of entry, in which the plaintiffs demanded seizin of a tract of land in Unity, and counted upon their own seizin and a disseizin by the tenant. The cause was tried upon the general issue, at October term. 1816, in this county. The plaintiffs made out a regular title under Banning Wentworth, the original grantee of the land.

■ THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained four counts.

THIS was ail action of debt, against the sheriff of this county, for three several escapes of one Porter Lumas, who had been committed to gaol in this county upon three several executions at the suit of the plaintiff. The declaration contained three counts.

THIS was an action of trespass, for taking a stud horse belonging to the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of trover, for sundry articles alleged to be the property of the plaintiffs. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon a statement of facts; but as the facts are all stated in the opinion of the court, it is deemed unnecessary to detail them here.

CASE, for escape on mesne process. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon a statement of facts, in which it was agreed that the plaintiff sued out a writ against one John Griffin, and delivered it to the defendant, who arrested Griffin, and returned upon the writ that he had arrested him, and bailed him to Ziba Huntington.; that at the court, where the writ was returnable, the defendant surrendered Griffin in court, who was thereupon committed to prison by…

THIS was an action of debt, for an escape upon execution. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court upon the following facts: The plaintiff recovered judgment in the superior court in this county against one Benjamin Blake, and sued out execution upon the judgment, upon which execution Blake was arrested, and, being in the custody of the defendant, who is sheriff of this county, escaped ; but the execution upon which Blake was arrested and in custody was not under…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff as endorsee of a promissory lióte made by one Sargent, and payable to the defendant September %5, 1816, and by the defendant endorsed to the plaintiff. The cause was tried here at the last term, on the general issue.

<p>A material alteration of a deed of land, whiles in possession of the grantee, is, prima facia, fraudulent, and is presumed to have been made by me grantee himself. Neither he, nor one claiming under him, with notice of the alteration, and without having paid an adequate consideration for the land, can avail themselves of such deed in evidence.</p> <p>Nor can they supply the want of it by parole testimony.</p>

<p>ASSUMPSIT, by Chauncy and others, against Joshua Yeaton and William Yeaton. The writ was served upon Joshua alone, and returned non est inventus as to William.</p> <p>The declaration contained two counts : one for $24,000, money had and received : the other for $33,704 20 : the balance of the following account annexed to the writ.</p> <p>August, 1813. Dr. to cash for freight of 4257 barrels of flour, in ship William & Henry, $24,000</p> <p>One year’s interest on ditto, 1,440</p> <p>Freight of 324 bags of corn, 500</p> <p>Cash for price of above ship, 13,000</p> <p>Seven months’ interest on ditto, 455</p> <p>$39,395 00</p> <p>Credit by bills of exchange, worth 5,690 80</p> <p>Balance, $33,704 20</p> <p>The defendant pleaded that he and the said William never promised, &c. On the trial, at the last term here, it was admitted, or clearly proved, that, in January, 1813, the plaintiffs were joint owners, in different proportions, of the ship William & Henry ; that on the 4th of said month, under the command of one Kennard, she sailed from Portsmouth, in this state, for Alexandria, where William Yeaton, to whom Chauncy had previously written to procure freight, and to wlym he ordered the master to apply, for the purpose of obtaining it,.resided. The ship arrived there on the 25th of the same month : Kennard called upon W. Yeaton, who procured a cargo of 4257 barrels of flour, to be shipped on account of a Mr. Howell, of Philadelphia, on freight for Europe, and also purchased ‘‘and put on board 324-bags of corn on account of the owners.</p> <p>On the 18th of February, 1813, the ship cleared for Lisbon : but was, on the 4th of March following, met and turned back by the British blockading squadron in Lynn Haven Bay. She reached Alexandria again the 13th, and the owners, on learning the above facts, directed the cargo to be kept on board. On the 6th of April, the master discharged all the crew, except one boy and the mate, a Mr. Hobart; with whom he left the ship’s papers and verbal orders to keep charge of the ship until otherwise directed by the owners. Kennard then returned on a visit to his family in New-England : soon after this, the ship was taken possession of by the defendants and others; Swedish colors hoisted ; her name altered to the “ Carl one Offatt, a Swede, put on board as nominal commander ; Hobart hired as sailing master ; Joshua Yeaton shipped as supercargo ; a new contract made with Howell as to freight; the ship transferred by Yeaton and others to one Hurd, a commission merchant at St. Bartholomews; a certificate put on board, that the property belonged to Messrs. Yeatons & Conway ; a British license was obtained from Admiral Warren, through the agency of one Beverly and General Henry Lee ; and, thus equipped, on the 30th of April the ship cleared for St. Bartholomews. In latitude 29 degrees north, her course, by the direction of Joshua Yeaton, was altered to Barbadoes, where she arrived on the 19th of June. She was immediately seized, by Capt. Dacres. Being claimed by said Joshua, as American property, under the protection of a British license, she was, on a compromise, restored ; the cargo there sold ; and the proceeds paid to said Joshua. The freight, after deducting the expenses of the seizure, &c,, amounted to $24,728. The ship was then ordered, by.said Joshua, to St. Bartholomews, for further freight, where she was seized by Hurd, as his property, delivered up again, on a compromise, and sold for $13,000. in bills of exchange. Joshua returned to this country, and after deducting losses, expenses, &c,, paid to William Yea-ton the value of the ship, and to the others concerned their respective proportions of the net profits. .</p> <p>There was also in the case some contradictory testimony upon the following points : The defendant introduced depositions and a very voluminous correspondence between Wm. Yeaton and the plaintiffs, to shew that an authority had been conferred by them upon William to dispose"' of the ship ; that, after she was left by Kennard, and before her conversion into a Swede, William, in pursuance of that authority, had sold her to Joshua Yeaton and others for $>13,500 ; of which sum there had since been paid to one of the plaintiffs, in bills of exchange, $6,630 ; and that after said sale William ceased to possess any interest or concern in her.</p> <p>The plaintiffs offered letters and depositions, to rebut the inferences deduced from what was contained in those read by the defendant : and, on the whole testimony, contended that no authority whatever had been given William Yeaton to sell the ship ; that those who, at Alexandria, took the possession of her from Hobart, did it as trespassers ; so freighted and conveyed her to the West-Indies, and so received her earnings and her price : that, possessing a right to waive the tort, they claimed in this form of action a verdict against the defendant for all the money he and William had received, both for the use and the sale of their property.</p> <p>The defendant, on the other hand, contended, thpt'the evidence showed an authority in William to sell, and consequently, he alone being liable for the balance due for the price of the ship, Joshua was entitled to a verdict. But if his authority was not clearly proved, it was further contended that the voyage, having been made under a British license, became illegal, and the plaintiffs ratifying it by this action could not recover its profits, but merely the money received for the ship at St. Bartholomews.</p> <p>The court directed the jury that if, on considering all the testimony, they were satisfied that Wm. Yeaton had an authority from the plaintiffs to sell the ship, or that the sale by him was subsequently ratified by the plaintiffs, Joshua, the defendant, ought not to be charged. On the other hand, if they were not satisfied that William made such sale, but believed that he, without authority, aided Joshua and others to take the ship into custody, and send her to the West-Indies, or afterwards participated in the profits of that specutation, the action was well brought against them both/and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover all the money obtained for the ship and her freight, with interest after the receipt until the former judgment ; deducting, however, necessary expenses and what had heretofore been paid.</p> <p>They were also directed to find the amount received by defendant for the ship, and the amount which had been paid to the plaintiffs by Wm. Heaton, in order that the verdict might be reduced, if for the plaintiffs, to the amount of the balance, with interest thereon, provided the court, on further consideration, should entertain an opinion that the plaintiffs could not recover for the freight received on the voyage, because made under British license, and to a colony of an enemy.</p> <p>The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs for $24,000, and found that the ship was sold for $12,500, and found the amount paid the plaintiffs to be $3,690 SO cents.</p> <p>This verdict was received, subject to be amended or set aside, as the court might think proper, after advising on the above points.</p>

THIS was an action against the defendant for refusing to complete a purchase by him made at auction of certain lands belonging to the plaintiffs.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the use and occupation of certain premises in Deerfield. It was submitted to the court on a statement of facts, involving the single question, whether a mortgagor can recover of the mortgagee the amount of the net profits the latter may have received from the lands, between the time of his entry on the premises, under a judgment to foreclose the mortgage, and the time when they are redeemed, in an action at common law.

THIS was a writ of entry, in which the demandant counted upon his own seizin of several tracts of land in North-Hampton, and upon a disseizin by the tenants.

THIS was a writ of entry, tried here at the last term upon the general issue, when a verdict was taken for the tenant, by consent, subject to the opinion of the court upon the fallowing case : One Silas Whitcomb, being seized in fee, on the 1st of November, 1810, conveyed the demanded premises to a Mr, Harriman, to hold in fee and in mortgage ; and on the 16th of April, 1814, made another mortgage of the same premises to Joshua Darling, Esq. On the 9 th of October, 1815,…

THIS was an action of replevin for certain cattle.. The defendant avowed the taking, damage feasant on his own freehold; and on the question of freehold; issue was joined. Roth parties claimed the locus in quo under Benjamin Butman. The defendant, in support of his title, gave in evidence a quitclaim deed from Beniamin Butman, bearing date March Till, 1817, and acknxn.

THIS was a scire facias against Dunklee, as bail of Mr. James Dunklee in an action in which the plaintiff’ recovered judgment here in October term, 1816, for 125 dollars damage, and 22 dollars 19 cents costs of suit. Execution issued against the said James in October, 1816, and was delivered to a deputy sheriff, who made a return of “ non est inven-tus on the same, at May term, 1817. This writ of scire facias was tested July 29th, 1817.

THIS was assumpsit on a note from the defendant to the plaintiff, or order, for 70 dollars, dated September 10, 1816. The cause was tried here at the last term on the general It appeared in evidence that the note was given for a quantity of size, made and sold by Reed to Prentiss.

THIS was an action of covenant.broken. The declaration alleged that the defendant, having conveyed to the plaintiff by deed a tract of land, covenanted with the plaintiff that at the time of the conveyance, he, the said Twitchell, was the lawful owner of the land• was seized and possessed thereof in his own right in fee simple, and had full power and lawful authority to grant and convey the same. The breaches were assigned by negativing the words of the covenants.

THIS was assumpsit, pending in the county of Rocking-ham, on a promissory note payable to the plaintiffs’ testate, u with interest annually.” The defendant was defaulted. moved for directions to the clerk to cast compound interest on the demand sued. The cause was submitted without argument, and continued nisi, and the opinion of the court delivered here this term .by 1

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for keeping at Canaan, (Vt.) six oxen, six weeks, in the year 1813. The cause was tried here at the last term on the general issue, and the de-fence placed upon two grounds: First. That the cattle during the above time belonged to Beach himself. Secondly.

DEBT upon a probate bond. The defendant craved oyer of the bond and of the condition, and then pleaded “ omnia performavit.” The plaintiff in his replication assigned four distinct breaches of the condition. Upon which the defendant demurred specially, and assigned duplicity as a cause of demurrer. The cause was argued by J. Mason, on the part of the defendant, and by J. Smith, for the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of trover for a horse, saddle and bridle. The cause was tried here at the last term upon the general issue. The plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, proved that one Benjamin Hodgdon had bailed the articles mentioned in the writ, to him to ride to Dover.

REPORT of referees upon a rule of reference, into which the parties had entered before a justice of the peace, under the provisions of the statute of June 21, 1797. The demand annexed to the submission was as follows : “ 1818. Taylor Page to S. Hill, Dr. “ To amount demanded in damages to be “ exhibited on trial, - - - - $500. “ Errors excepted, >5?.

THIS was an action'of assumpsit, brought to recover the amount of a promissory note made by the defendants for 200 dollars, dated March 2, ISOS, payable to the plaintiffs in sixty days, with interest after. , The cause was tried here at this term upon the general issue, when the. plaintiffs called W. C., the former cashier of the bank, as a witness, to prove that the note mentioned in the declaration had been in the bank, and had been lost while the said W. C. was cashier.

THIS was an. action of assumpsit. The defendants pleaded in abatement that administration of the goods and estate of the said A. Dorman had never been granted to the plaintiff. To this the plaintiff replied, that the said A. Dor-man at the time of his death was an inhabitant of, and had his residence in, the state of Connecticut, where administration of his goods and estate had been duly granted to the plaintiff. To this replication there was a general demurrer and joinder.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money expended in the relief of one Betsey Smith, from July, 1813, to October, 1814. It was submitted on a statement, all the material facts in which were as follows: In A. D. 1789, Oliver Smith, the pauper’s ’father, moved into Gilmanton.

THIS was a libel for a divorce, a vinculo. The libellant alleged, as a cause of divorce, that her husband, the said S. F., had willingly absented himself from her for the space of three years together, without making suitable provision for her support and maintenance, although it was in his power so to do.

<p>An act of the legislature awarding a now trial in an action winch has been decided in a coart of law, is an exercise of judicial power. It. is Hun in its operation retrospective j and for these two reasons is unconstitutional.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The writ contained several counts, in which the substantial allegations were, that on the 1st day of September, A. D., 1806, one Elizabeth Twyman died testate ; that the defendant was her sole de-visee under a condition to pay the plaintiff, from the income of the estate devised, the sum of fifty dollars annually during the plaintiff’s life ; that the defendant was also executor of said Elizabeth, accepted the trust, took possession of her…

THIS is a real action, brought to recover the possession of a tract of land in Exeter. The demandants count on the seizin of one Joseph Brown, late parson of the parish, in right of the parish, taking the profits, &c. within twenty years next preceding the first day of January, A. D., 1816, the time of the commencement of their suit — the dismission of Brown from his office as pastor is alleged, and the entry, &c. of the tenants since the vacancy occasioned by his dismission.

THIS was an action of debt on a judgment recovered in the court of common pleas for the county of Providence, in the state of Rhode Island. The defendant pleaded nil debet, to which plea the plaintiff demurred.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, as administratrix of Timothy Dix, jun. upon a contract in writing as follows :— Boston, October 25, 1808. — I, the subscriber, of Warner, have received of T. Dix, jun. manager of Dixville road lottery, ten tickets in the second class of said lottery, for the purpose of selling, which tickets I promise to return to him, or one of the other managers, three days before the day appointed by the managers for drawing said…

THIS was an action of debt brought in the name of the judge of probate for this county against the defendant, as administrator of Jonas Davis, deceased, upon probate bond, given by one Rebecca Batchelder as principal, upon her ap* pointment as administratrix of the estate of one Joseph Batchelder, and in which the said Jonas Davis, deceased, was a surety.

THIS was an action of trespass. The declaration contained two counts. 1. For assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff four hours, on the 16th August, 1817. 2. For an assault, and imprisoning the plaintiff two hours, and until he paid two dollars, on the 20th August, 1817. The defendant pleaded, l. Not guilty, to the whole declaration. 2.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a note dated December 25th, 1814, for 125 dollars, in two years. It was made payable to Amos A. Brewster, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.

THIS was an indictment for an assault and battery, committed on one James Dodge. The defendant pleaded in bar a former conviction before a justice of the peace, for the same offence. The counsel for the state replied, that said conviction was obtained by the covin and fraud of the defendant. Tile rejoinder took issue on that fact, and the cause was tried here at October term, A. D., 1817.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money expended in the relief of Rachel Welch and her five children, who were all admitted to he paupers. The cause was tried in Rockingham county, at the last February term, and continued nisi for advisement.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for relief furnished to the wife and children of H. P. Wadleigh. The cause was tried here upon the general issue, at the last April term. It was proved that in A. D., 1787, the father of H. P. Wadleigh, having a settlement in Hampstead, died, and that the son was then ten years old. For the six ensuing years H. P. Wadleigh continued to reside in Hampstead, with his guardian.

THIS was an action of trespass, for taking goods, and was tried on the general issue. f On the trial the plaintiff gave evidence, that in September, 1809, he was appointed an inspector of the revenue, by Joseph Whipple, the collector for the district of New-Hampshire, and had ever since been known as an acting inspector within the district; but gave no evidence that his appointment was made with the approbation of the secretary of the treasury, or that lie had been sworn to…

THIS was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate in this county, allowing a certain instrument as the will of the Rev. Edward Sprague. The parties agreed to submit the cause to the decision of the court upon the following facts.

<p>THIS was an action of .assumpsit. The .declaration alleges that Gould had recovered .a judgment against Colburn, and sued out a writ of execution thereon, and that it was after-wards agreed between Gould and Colburn, that if Colburn would procure a friend to give security for a certain part of the debt, that Gould would, upon receiving such security, release the residue; that in pursuance of their agreement, Col-burn procured one Tawne to .make his promissory .note to Gould for the sum. agreed, which note Colburn delivered to Gould, who accepted it. Gould endorsed the amount of the note on the execution, but refused to release the remainder of the debt according to the agreement, and afterwards put the execution into the hands of a sheriff, who by his direction levied the undischarged balance. To this «declaration the defendant demurs.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts : 1. a quantum meruit, for work and labor, estimated at 211 dollars, 14 cents: 2. on an account annexed to the writ, in which the same work and labour was charged, and the balance of which account amounted to 211 dollars 14 cents.

This was an action of assumpsit, founded upon the promise of the defendant to guaranty the payment of a note for 130 dollars, dated November 13, 1810, made by Rufus .and John Houghton, and payable to the plaintiff, or order, on de*-rnand, with interest.

TROVER for a marc. The cause was* tried here at the last May term, upon the general issue, when it appeared m evidence that the mare once belonged to one Ezra Flanders ; that Ziba Huntington, a deputy sheriff’, having an execution in his hands in favour of P. Noyes against Flanders, for about 30 dollars debt and costs, on the 36th of June, 1817, seized the mare upon the execution ; that Flanders, being desirous to procure time to raise money and pay the execution, and…

TR( )VKR for 8 10 lbs. of leather, of the value of 336 dollars, alleged to have been converted by the defendant on the 1st January, 1811. Held: and very correctly, that the tender and acceptance, without any actual removal of the coal, changed the property. But they did not decide that a tender and refusal would change the property, or any thing like it.

THIS was a writ of entry, in which the demandant counted upon his own seizin of a lot of land in Haverhill, and upon a disseizin by the tenants.

THIS was a scire facias against Pearson, as endorser of an original writ in a suit commenced by one Jesse Carr, an inhabitant of the state of Vermont, against the said JJe%er Itiah Parsons, and in which judgment was rendered here in this court at November term., 1817, in favor of Parsons, to recover his costs, It appeared from the scire facias that both the parties to it were inhabitants of the county of Coos, Pearson objected that this scire facias ought to have been…

THIS was an action of trespass on the case, against the defendant, for building a dam across Connecticut river, at a place called the lower bar of White river falls; bymeans of which a certain ancient publiek highway near said falls, which the said town of Lebanon was1 by law bound to keep in repair, was overflowed and rendered impassable, and the town compelled to make a new highway at an expense of 650 dollars.

<p>THIS was an indictment on two counts. One charged the prisoner with resisting an officer while in the execution of his official duties, and the other charged him with a common assault upon the same officer as a private citizen.</p> <p>At the trial here, on the general issue, May term, 1818, the prisoner was found guilty upon both counts. His counsel moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection by the court, that an officer after a demand and refusal was justified in breaking in the night time the doors of a house, to arrest the owner on a complaint and warrant for a breach of the peace.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit in two counts ; one for 700 dollars money loaned, and the other for so much money had and received.

THIS was an action of trespass in ejectment. At the t rial here under the general issue, May term, 1818, it appeared in evidence that John Wheelock, Esq. was the owner of the demanded premises on the 15th of March', A. D., 1796: that he then leased them to one O.,.for 985 years: . that O. entered and died, bequeathing all his “ personal _ estate” to A. P. and wife,; and that in November, 1807, A. P. , and wife conveyed their interest to the plaintiff.

THIS was a writ of entry. The demandants counted oil their own seizin in right of the wife. At September tenia, 1817, the tenants vouched in their warrantors, the town of Dover; and at February term. 1818, the vouchees, appearing by their attorney, assumed the de-fence and pleaded the general issue.

THIS was a scire facias against the defendant, as endorser of a writ in favor of one Little, an inhabitant of this state.

<p>THIS was a writ of entry by the demandants, as heirs of Emerson Porter, who was alleged to have been seized of the premises within the last twenty years.</p> <p>The tenant pleaded, that he had never disseized the said Emerson Porter; and at the trial here, September term, 1818, the demandant offered in evidence a judgment against the tenant,which was in favour of Emerson Porter, and which was recovered at the court of common pleas in this countv, January term, 1816. On this an execution had issued, by which the demanded premises appear to have been duly extended unless the proceedings were void, because the attorney for Emerson Porter in obtaining the judgment had acted as his appraiser, and had also administered the oath to the other appraisers. But the papers were permitted to go to the jury, and a verdict was returned for the demandants, subject to the opinion of the court on the above exceptions.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass, vi et armis. The defendant pleaded not guilty as to the force, and a justification as to the residue.

THIS was an action of debt upon a judgment that wats recovered against the defendant’s intestate.

THIS was an action of trespass on the case. The declaration contained two counts, in one of which it was alleged that the defendant, being a justice of the peace, on the 11th of October, 1817, was requested by Obed 'E. Hall to receive and take cognizance of a complaint, in which the present plaintiff was charged with having committed the crime of perjury : that the defendant thereupon issued a warrant against the plaintiff, by which he was arrested, and on the 14th of…