Volume 10 — Johnson's New York Reports

THIS was an action on the case. The cause was tried at the circuit court, in St. Lawrence county, on the 24th of June, 1812, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The defendants were merchants residing at Ogsdenburgh, and . & & owners of the schooner called the Experiment, and of scows, for the purpose of carrying goods and merchandise to, and from, the different ports and places on Lake Ontario, and Ogdensburgh, and Montreal.

<p>] t wiu^after gtvparts8ofOÍ^iis real and personal estate to each of his five devised a^fidíhT ;awer mentioned artides are taken out of my tate,ea let the vaiue<Tty indifferent men, agreed upon for that purrKS “ mL„=ílrs among themselves s and if anyofmy sons should die, :• Tsme^thenAet his or their heequaUy ditíísurSoors, shouidhappen they so dying, should leave a wife behind, in which case, she shall take back what she brought with her, and 1O0Z. besides, and only the remainder shall be divided as aforesaid.’’</p> <p>Soon after the death of the testator, in 1809, the executors divided the personal property among the heirs, by mutual agreement, pursuant to the will; and delivered to John, one of the heirs and devisees, a sealed note for 850 dollars, executed by B. to the testator, in his lifetime, but without discriminating whether it was paid to him, as part of his specific legacy, or of the remainder so directed to be divided, and which would not have given to .each of the sons more than 60 dollars.</p> <p>John continued in possession of the note so delivered to him, until i811, when he assigned it to G., who had attended him in his last sickness, and who had lived in the family of the testator, and was well acquainted with the will, as a compensation to her, for her services, as he said, and a few days after he died,"unmarried and -without lawful issue. His surviving brothers took the note hi question^jgtolher articles, out of a trunk belonging to John, claiming them, by virtue of the de? vise. father’s will.^ G. who also claimed the note, by virtue of the assignment from Jb/ro,and after a suit had been brought on it against B. by the executors of A,, executed a release of it, to B.; it was held that the limitation over extended to all the devises and bequests, and was good by way of executory devise / and that it was an unalienable interest which could not be defeated»by the devisee, who had only the use, and not an absolute property in the thing-so devised; that the note, in this case, not having been collected, or converted into money, in the ■lifetime of John, but remaining in his possession, passed to the survivors, like any specific movearhTe of which he died possessed; that G. look the assignment subject to all the rights under the will, end the release executed by her was in fraud of the persons entitled in remainder, and void; and taken by B. at his peril; both the assignment and release being made in violation of a vested Tight.</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment, for lands in JVallkill, in Orange county. The cause was tried at the Orange circuit m September, 1811, before the Chief Justice, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on a case containing the following facts: Charles Bull died seised of the premises in question.

THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The oapias ad respondendum was served only on Jones and Kearney, two of the defendants, and was returned non est inventus, as to the ’ _ other. The plaintiff declared against the two that were arrested, and the other defendant as returned not found. Jerome never appeared or pleaded. The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, in 1812, before Mr. Justice Spencer.

THIS was an action of ejectment, for part of lot No. 128. in the Cayuga reservation. The cause was tried at the Cayuga circuit, in June, 1812, before Mr. Justice Spencer.

THIS was an action, of debt, on a bond, dated 17 th January, 1811, executed by the defendants to the plaintiff, for 160 dollars: conditioned, “ that if the defendants should pay to the plaintiff the sum of 80 dollars and 79 cents, together with the costs of a suit, then pending in the court of common pleas of St. Lawrence county, in favour of the plaintiff against Levi Tuttle, (who had given a cognovit therein for that sum,) on or before the first Thursday of June next…

THIS was an action of assumpsit for a legacy. The husband of the plaintiff died seised of a large real and personal estate; and by h*s Ias* will, dated the 2d of July, 1807, devised all his real estate (except 69 acres of land) to his two sons, the defendants, during their natural lives. . Having proved the will, the defendants enteraed into possession of the property devised to them, on the 10th 1807.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the common money counts.

<p>THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought on the following note, given by the intestate, in his lifetime. li February 18th, 1810, for Value received for boarding, I promise to pay Ralph Pay, or bearer, one hundred and fifteen dollars, by the first day of June next.” The defendant pleaded the general issue, and the infancy of the maker of the note. The plaintiff replied, that the note was given to the payee, for necessary boarding, lodging and washing, furnished by him to the intestate, in his lifetime. The defendant rejoined, that the note was not given for necessa» ñes, &c. and issue was joined thereon.</p> <p>At the trial it was provedethat the intestate was an infant when he gave the note. It was contended by the plaintiff’s counsel, that the note having been negotiated and transferred to the plaintiff, the consideration could not be inquired into, or impeached os the ground of infancy. The judge ruled that the note was not conclusive. The. payee was then, called as a witness, and testitied, that the intestate boarded and lodged with him for nine months, at tl>e rate of one hundred dollars per annum; that besides the boarding, the witness had a large account against the intestate, for liquors furnished him, and for horse hire, and a sad-, die worth 15 dollars, sold to him. The witness had received considerable payments from the intestate, and the note was given for the balance of the account. The intestate became of age a few months after, it was given.</p> <p>The judge charged the jury, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover for the 9 months board, at the rate of 100 dollars per annum, and for the saddle, but that the resjdue of the account ' ought to be rejected. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 90 dollars, subject to the opinion of the court on a case, containing the facts aboye stated; which was submitted to the court without argument.</p>

THIS was ail action of assumpsit, brought on two promissory notes made by the defendant and Sylvester Richmond, dated 5th November, 1793. The defendant pleaded non assumpit and the statute of limitations. .... On the trial, at the Rensselaer circuit, in 1811, it was proved, that about two years before, the defendant was shown the notes ánd called upon for payment.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The first count in the declaration was on a written agreement, dated the 3d May, 1807, by which the plaintiff promised, and bound himself, to deliver to the defendant, on or before the 1st May, then next, 130 logs of yellow pine, straight and fit for boring, &c. and that the plaintiff should find a person to bore the logs, &c. and to lay them, for the sum of 87 1-2 cents per rod, &c. and also to deliver 4 large logs for troughs, at the same…

THIS was an action of covenant. The cause was tried at the Nem-York sittings, in Jimc, 1812, before the Chief Justice.

THIS was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit; 2.

<p>The plea of puts «indeed tiff need not averments la y¿n. dec,ara"</p> <p>) A, deceased, chased ofTís ^git'or dower ^ gave a bond to agreed'tcTíeé equal participation of the benefit of the purchase, <m their paying their proportion of the purchase-money? and the oilier heirs covenanted to pay their proportion of the obligation to the widovz V this was held a mutual covenant between the heirs, and that the word widow was used only to designate the obligation intended»</p>

THE writ of scire facias, in this cause, stated that Thomas Schoonmaker and Wyntje Schoonmaker, the testatrix, recovered judgment against the defendants, in this court, in August term, 1805, for 2,500 dollars debt, and 74 dollars and 14 cents damages and costs; and that afterwards Thomas died, and the testatrix survived him; that afterwards, on the 23d of July, 1811, the testatrix died, having first made her will, and thereby appointed the plaintiffs her executors, &c.; that…

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Orange county. The plaintiff in error brought an action of debt in thp court below, against one Reynolds and the defendant in error; and the former was'returned not found, and the latter in custody, &c. The declaration was on a recognisance taken the 29th of July, 1809, before a justice, in the penalty of 50 dollars, to the plaintiff) and which recited that the plaintiff had sued Reynolds before the justice, in an action of…

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Orange . . . county.

IN ERROR, from the general sessions of the peace of Ulster county. Application was made by the defendants in errror to the general sessions of the peace in Ulster county, for an order of filiation and maintenance against. Van IVzgenen, as the putative father of a bastard child.

THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration was on the following instrument, executed by Jacob Philips, the ancestor, in his lifetime, to the plaintiff’s testator: “ For and in consideration of the sum of 12Z. to me in hand paid, by Abraham Salis- * v burn, I do hereby assign over to him and his assigns, for ever, all * the estate, right and interest, which I have in the lands described in the within lease; upon this condition, if I shall pay to the said Abraham…

THIS was an action on two policies of insurance on the brig called the Elisa, and her cargo, at and from New-York to Bordeaux. The cause was tried at the New-York sittings, in November, 1811, before Mr. Justice Pan Ness. The Elisa sailed from New-York the 1st November, 1811, on the voyage insured. ■ The master of the Elisa testified, that oh the 12th December, in lat. 45, 20 north, and 8 west of London, she was boarded by the British frigate Cambrian, and warned off.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, dated 14th Fe- ' r v bruary, 1810, on one fourth part of the ship Governor Gore, of which the plaintiff was master, oh a voyage from New-York to Tonningen, “ with liberty to touch at Heligoland; if turned away, to have liberty to go to a near port where she can be admitted.” “ Warranted American property, if captured or detained, the assured not to abandon, if the property insured is released, in six months after advice received…

THIS was an action on the case. The plaintiffs, Elbert and Samuel Kip, were bound with and for Samuel Haring, in an obligationfor 1,000 dollars, and having respectively lent their notes-to, or endorsed notes for, Samuel Haring and Henry Willers, partners, under the firm of Haring 8 Willers, for their indemnification and security, Haring 8 Willers executed a deed, or assignment, dated 1st of June, 1811, of all their stock in trade, securities for the payment of money and…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered, brought by the plaintiff against Elijah Ferris, impleaded w^h Jonathan Ferris and Amos Bostwick. The goods in question were- sold to Bostwick, residing in Swanton, in the state of Vermont, on bis individual credit, and charged to him in the-books of the plaintiff.

P. W. BADCLIFF, at the last term, in behalf of Powers, moved that the default, and all subsequent proceedings in the cause, be set aside, that a restitution be awarded, and that JD. Powers be admitted as defendant; and for such other order as the court might direct.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note made by the defendant to the plaintiff dated the 5th June, 1811, for J , r 209 dollars and 50 cents, payable on demand. The declaration was. filed in 3J'Ia~j term, 1812. In Angust terni taut the de. fendant pleaded, 1. Non assnmpsit; 2.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on part of the cargo of the ship Alonso, on a voyage from New-York to Tonningen. The policy was dated the 20th of October, 1808, and was expressed to be “ on coffee valued at 25 cents per pound.” The defendants subscribed 40,000 dollars, at a premium of 2 1-2 per cent.; two per cent, to be returned in case of loss. The policy contained the usual clause as to prior insurance.

THESE were actions on two several policies of insurance, on the vessel called the Radius, and her cargo, “ at and from New-York to St. Sebastians or Pasdge, and if turned off, or the cap- . , i m tain thinks it prudent not to enter, with liberty to proceed to Ionmugeit.” The policy ori the vessel was on one fourth, valued at gum ¡nsuret¡.

THIS was an action of assault and battery and false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded the general issue; but, by the consent of the attorney of the plaintiff, was to be at liberty to give any special matter in evidence, at the trial. The cause was tried at the last Orange circuit, before Mr. Jus- . ^ ° tice hpencer.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated the 14th May, 1810, by which the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff, on or before the 1st October next, 100 dollars, The defendant pleaded that on the 14th May, 1810, at, &c. in consideration that the plaintiff had, then and there, promised and agreed to sell and deliver to him, a certain sloop or vessel, &c. which the plaintiff, then and there, falsely and fraudulently declared an(j affirmed to be the sole…

THIS was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, 8cc. The cause was tried at the Green circuit, the 28th August, 1812, be-_ fore Mr. Justice rates. The plaintiff proved the taking and carrying away of the goods in question, by the defendants.

THIS was an action of false imprisonment. The cause was * tried at the Chenango circuit, before Mr. Justice Van Ness, in September, 1812, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on a case, containing the following facts: The plaintiff was arrested, by virtue of a warrant, issued by the defendant, a justice of the county of Chenango, on the complaint of one of the overseers of the poor of the town of Norwich, under the second section of the…

THIS was an indictment for an assault and battery, tried at the Delaware sessions, in January, 1812, on which the defendant was found guilty.

<p>THIS was an action of debt, brought to recover 125 dollars, being the amount of an assessment imposed on the defendant, as lessee of a lot of land in the 4th ward of the city of New-York, tinder the 11th section of the act for regulating the buildings, streets, &c. in the city of New-York, (sess. 24. c. 129.) passed' 3d April, 1801.</p> <p>The defendant gave a cognovit actionem for the sum demanded, subject to the opinion of the court, on the following case: The plaintiffs being seised of the lot of ground, at the corner of Chatham and Dnane-streets, demised the same to the defendant, for the term of 21 years, from the 1st May, 1806, at the yearly rent of 250 dollars. The lease contained the following covenant: “ And the said Michael Cashman doth for himself, &c. covenant, &c. that he, the said Michael Cashman, his executors, &c. shall and will, a* tkeir proper costs and charges, bear, pay, and discharge all such duties, taxes, assessments, impositions and payments, as shall, during the term hereby demised, be issued or grow due and Pottí o/, and for the said demised premises, and shall level, dig 0ut and pave such parts of the street to the middle thereof/ * * on which the said lot is bounded, in such sufficient manner as the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city of New-York shall, fr°time-to time, order and direct.” -</p> <p>The defendant has held the possession of the premises under * the lease, since the 1st May, 1806.</p> <p>Subsequently to this demise, the buildings betweén Augustus-street were destroyed by fire; and on the 27th November, 1811, the corporation of the city of New-York passed an ordinance, to open and continue Chamber-street, from Augustus-street to Chalham-stred,. and caused the damages and recompense to the owners of the property taken, to be valued, by virtue of the authority vested in the mayor, aldermen and commonalty of the city, by an act of the legislature, passed 2d April, 1803; (sess. 26. c. 70. s. 15, 16.) and assessors having been appointed, in the usual manner, to estimate and assess the expenses occasioned by the improvements upon the property benefited assessed the sum of 125 dollars, for which the sent suit was brought, upon the lot of ground so demised to the defendant, and in his possession, which assessment was regularly confirmed by the common council, on the 3d February, 1812.</p> <p>The only question submitted to the consideration of the court was, whether the sum so assessed was to be paid by the plaintiffs, the owners of the premises, or by the defendant, the tenant. And it was agreed that if the court should be of opinion that the assessment ought to be paid by the tenant, a judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs, otherwise, a judgment of non-suit should be entered.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Phillips brought an action of trespass against Townsend, for taking and 7*S »’ay a quantity of oars, the property¡s^the plaintiff below.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Billings brought an action of covenant against Mead, before the justice; and stated that on the 21st January, 1805, the defendant bound his son to the plaintiff as an apprentice, for 7 years, 9 months and 29 days, to learn the trade of a shoemaker, when the defendant knew, at the time, that his son would be of age one year before the expiration of that term, and the son, in fact, left the plaintiff one year before the term…

IN ER|¿Oít, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Armstrong' brought an action against Ferris before the justice. Ferris was a company of artillery, in the 3d regiment of artillery in the city of Nem-York, and the plaintiff below, Armstrong, was a private in that company.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Comfort brought an action of debt against Thompson, before the justice, to recover the penalty under the act to prevent injury by dogs, passed the 24th of March, 1801. (Sess. 24. c. 62.) The plaintiff, in his declaration, stated, that the defendant, after being notified that his dog had chased and killed sheep, had kept him, and not killed him, &c. The cause was tried by a jury.

<p>^ ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Amory brought an action of trover against Flyn, before the justice, for two geese. There was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved a demand of the geese, and a refusal by the defendant, unless the would first pay 25 cents, for liquor furnished to two men who had caught the geese, and pledged them to the defendant for . , it. 1 he geese were ot the wild kind, but were so tame as to eat ou* °f hand. They had strayed away twice before, and did n0^ re^urn un^ brought back. The plaintiff proved property in them; and that after the geese had left his premises, the son of the defendant was seen pursuing them with dogs, and was inform-e<^ they belonged to the plaintiff. The jury found a verdict for the defendant, on which the justice gave judgment, ° ° ° °</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from the justices’ court of the city of Nerv-York.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Dixon sued Cudner, béfore the justice, for work and labour, &c. The plaintiff appeared on the return of the summons, but the defend-being called, made default. The plaintiff exhibited his account to the justice, who, on the default of the defendant, gave judgment for the plaintiff, without any proof of the plaintiff’s déj mand*

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Linderman sued Vandusor, before the justice, and declared against him for the loss of the service of his son, whilst defending a certain suit, brought against him by Vandusor; and for money paid by Linderman, in behalf of his son, in and about defending the same suit, &c. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff, for three dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Weaver brought an action, before the justice, against Watkins, as a constable, for not executing and returning an execution in favour of the plaintiff, against one Bisbee, according to law. In February, 1812, Aaron Burnett, as attorney of the plaintiff, appeared and declared for him, against the defendant.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Waring brought an action of assumpsit against Lockwood, before the justice, and declared on a note, and also on an account for services, &c. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and said he was ready for trial; but the cause was adjourned at the request of the plaintiff At the adjourned day, the defendant demanded a trial by jury- At the trial, he produced a receipt or written settlement of the account of the plaintiff up…

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Snyder sued Storms, before the justice, for work and labour, and opening a road from the defendant’s house, &c. The plaintiff, on the trial, , ,i, i. , _ \ , proved an agreement between him and the defendant) that the plaintiff should open the road, &c. to its original width, and that the defendant should pay the plaintiff 10 dollars and 50 cents.

<p>IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Burke sued Smith before the justice, by a summons, in trover; and declared in assumpsit “ for the third part of eight bushels sowing of rye.” The defendant objected to the variance between the action stated iu the summons and the plaintiff’s declaration, but the justice overruled the objection. The defendant also objected the uncertainty of the plaintiff’s demand, but the objection was overruled. The defendant then pleaded the general issue, and produced a running account against the plaintiff, amounting to 229 dollars and 34 cents, by way of set-off; which the justice overruled, because it was not fully substantiated. A motion was then made for a nonsuit, on the ground that the matters exceeded the justice’s jurisdiction, but the objection was overruled; and a venire being demanded, the cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 25 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hait brought an action against Fowler, before the justice, for the breach of a contract in the sale or exchange of a horse. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and being asked if he bad any account or demand to set off, he answered that he had no account or demand to offer. The plaintiff demanded a trial by jury.

<p>by Aapíht against the shipfto recounder the'fct (sess. 28, o. 28.) it was held, that the shipf °at°fthe takes ^charge of her, is a matter of fact, and may be tariff and on*1 sufficient proof, ¡sentíEoiaj-e,though caused‘an enintheZo^.ioofc6 of the bearing «tiicL distance of the light-time6 he'took charge of the ing to tlxe master and port ofS jv*ewYork, for the pilots, though subje™R>to b& making' suc°h</p> <p>f ^ that the pilot w?thoutVepermission of the CRpt&ni, its required by the master and wardens, will not deprive him of his right of action against the owner, for pilotage, provided he left a competent substitute on hoard, by reason of his being unable to perform his duty himself. But such substitute must he a regular branch or deputy pilot, otherwise, he is not entitled to the fees, under the act; though, perhaps, the substitute, or his principal, might have an action against the shipowner, on a quantummeruit, for the service performed.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Fargo sued Terry, before the justice, by a warrant, which was granted 011 th® oath of the plaintiff. The plaintiff declared on a note, signed for the defendant, by one Barker, as his attorney/ The defendant denied the note, and that Barker had any authority to make it. Barker was produced as a witness, and was objected to foy the defendant. He was then sworn on his voire dire, and admit-J ted.

<p>THIS was an action of trespass, for assaulting, debauching and . .ii-i iiti1 _ ° ° getting with child the daughter of the plaintiff, per quod, &c, and was tried before Mr. Justice Thompson, at the Otsego circuit, in September, 1812.</p> <p>_ _ _ The daughter, who was a witness for the plaintiff, at the trial, testified, that she was 29 years old. She lived with her father, the plaintiff, until a short time before her misfortune. She went to one Layton’s, returned home, and, after a week, went back to Lay-ion’s to work, and while there, on the 24th of October last, her connexion with the defendant happened. She then went to her brother’s, and did not return to her father’s house until February. The child was born while she was at her father’s house, and he took care of her during her illness, and was at the expense of her lying in, See. While she lived with her father, she worked for him, when at home, and her earnings, during 7 or 8 years, when she went out to work, as occasion offered, were applied to pay for necessaries for the family. Her father did not, however, claim a right to her services, or to the wages she earned. . She never went from home when her services were wanted. The defendant had paid attention to her for several years, at different places, and once while she was at the plaintiff’s house.</p> <p>The judge intimated, an opinion, that the action was not maintainable ; a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case; the jury having assessed the damages at 180 dollars.</p>

A MOTION was made in this cause, in behalf of the defend- . ants, to set aside the execution, on an affidavit, stating that the judgment was obtained prior to the late declaration of war against Great Britain, that the plaintiff is an alien enemy, and resided at the time when the iudgment was obtained, and now resides in Co-v . r* _ , . nada, within the territory of Great Britain.

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff, who sued as well for himself as the people, &c. against the defendant, as supervisor of the town of Scipio, to recover the penalty of 250 dollars, under the act passed 20th March, 1807. (Sess. 30. c. 43.) The pla¡ní'ff having recovered judgment for the penalty, the defend-ant paid to him, on the 11th February, 1812, the amount of the judgment and costs, and took a release and discharge in full, under seal, for the same.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The bill against the de_ _ _ _ - . ni i • i • fendanty who was an attorney of this court, was hied m vacation, as of the first Monday of August term, 1832, and stated the promise or assumption of the defendant, to be on the 1st September, 1812. * The defendant pleaded, that on the second day of September, 1812, he delivered to the plaintiff a bank check, which had been paid, and which the plaintiff accepted and received in full satisfaction,…

_ THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, on the ship dated the 14th of Avgust, 1810, for 2,000 dollars, at premium of 6 per cent, “at and from New-York to the port ®íscí^ *n the province of Yucatan, with liberty to proceed to one other port in said province, not to the southward of Laguna dc Términos, nor to the eastward of Cape 'Catoche, and back to The cause was tried at the sittings, &S?%New-York” the city of New-York, T J ’ on the 19th of November, 1812, before Mr.…

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the brig Sally, dated 25th September, 1810, valued at the sum insured; “at and from her last port of lading in the province of Yucatan, to NewVnrb _ e . e This cause was tried at the same time with the last cause, and there was the same evidence and the same proofs, offered and rejected; except that the Sally went from Sisal to Angostura, in the province of Yucatan, having obtained a permit from the custom-house at Merida, to…

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the freight of the ship Elheta, for the same voyage as described in the former case on the ship. (p. 120.) The policy contained the following written clause: “ The said freight hereby insured, is valued at the sum insured, carried or not carried. The cause was tried at the same time with the other causes, and the same evidence given, and ine same proof offered and rejected. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, for a total loss.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The material fact stated on the return was, that the justice admitted one of the parties, as a witness de bene esse; but that he afterwards disregarded the testimony, not considering it as evidence in the cause.

<p>An altaeiiment issued by n justice, under the act, (sess. 31. c. 204. s. 31.) at the instance of a bona fide creditor, and in a ease warranted by law, creates a lien upon the goods attached, not only against the acts of the debtor himself, but against a subsequent attachment or execution o£ any other creditor; butthe lieji will be lost if the creditor does not prosecute his suit to judgment and execution with alf due diligence)</p>

THIS was an action of trover for a negro girl. The cause e was tried, at the Washington circuit, in June, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates. At the trial, the' plaintiff offered a negro d Adam, as a witness. The defendant objected to his competency, and proved that he was the slave of the testator , , at the time of his death.

<p>THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover lot No. 90. in the 25th township in the military tract now in the town of Cincinnatus, and was tried at the Courtlandt circuit, the 11th of Scpiember, 1812, before Mr. Justice Pan Ness.</p> <p>The lessors of the plaintiff were the heirs at law of Daniel Hungerford, and to support their title produced a patent from the people of the state to David Hungerford, a soldier, for the premises in question, which patent passed the secretary’s office v in 1191. The lessors also gave in evidence an act of the legislature, passed April 10,1805, entitled “An act for the relief of Daniel Hungerford.” It recited that whereas it appeared that C) v A A letters patent had issued in the name of David Hungerford for lot No. 90. in Cincinnatus, which, grant was intended for Daniel Hungerford; therefore, it was thereby enacted, &c. “that the said letters patent shall be deemed to have vested the said lot in the said Daniel Hungerford, in the same manner as if such letters patent had been issued in the name of said Daniel.” The lessors also produced the following extract from the balloting-book kept in the office of the secretary of state:</p> <p>“ The dead of the several regiments, Names and rank. H. Begt. Company. Towns. Lot. Acres. Hungerford, David. First. M‘Kean's. 25. 90. 500.”</p> <p>To this was subjoined the certificate of the secretary, that it was a true extract from the balloting-book, kept by the commissioners of the land-office, and that no other person of the name of Hungerford was to be found in the book. Samuel Anderson, a witness for the plaintiff, testified, that he was a soldier in Captain McKean’s company, in the first regiment, and lived in the place where the company was first raised, which was in Cherry Valley, in Otsego county, on the Mohawk, where he enlisted; that he knew Daniel Hungerford, the father of the lessors, who lived in the same place, perfectly well; that Daniel H. enlisted and served in the same company, until the autumn, or early in the winter, of 1778, when he died at the Saratoga barracks; that he was the only man of the name of Hungerford ever in that company ; the witness knew no other person of that name in the New-York line, and had there been any other person of the name of Hungerford, in the first regiment, he should certainly have known him.</p> <p>Major James Thompson also testified, that he first enlisted as a private in M‘Kean’s company, and served in it until after M‘Kean died; that he knew Daniel Hungerford perfectly well; that Daniel H. served in McKean’s company until early in the winter of 1778, when he died at the Saratoga barracks; that he knew every man in the first regiment; and there was no person of the name of David Hungerford in McKean’s company, or in that regiment.</p> <p>The defendant’s counsel objected to any evidence that went to contradict or vary the patent; and submitted to the judge whether it was competent to the legislature, after the patent had issued, to pass an act vesting the title to the land in Daniel Hungerford; and the point was reserved, with liberty to the defendant to move for a new trial.</p> <p>The defendant claimed title under David Hungerford, and proved, by his parents, that he enlisted in the army of the United-Slates, during the revolutionary war, and was taken prisoner, and after his release, he served in the New-York line, until the end of the war, when he received his discharge; but it did not appear in what company or regiment he served. In 1785, he married at his father’s house in Bristol, in the state of Connecticut, and soon after went to sea, and never returned. His parents heard that he died in the island of Jersey. He left a daughter, an only child, who was married to Nathan Stanley, who entered into possession, in right of his wife, and afterwards leased the premises to the defendant.</p> <p>The jury, under the direction of the judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant submitted to the judge whether he was not entitled to be paid for his improvements, under the act of the 5th of April, 1803, (sess. 26. c. 88.) and the point was als© reserved for the opinion of the court.</p>

THIS was an action of trespass and false imprisonment. The Mr. Justice Thompson, at the Ontario circuit, in September, 1812.

THIS was an action of debt on a bond. The cause was tried the Oneida circuit, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The declaration was in the usual form.

THIS was an action of debt on a bond, dated the 2d August, 1810, conditioned to perform the award of arbitrators. The defendants pleaded, 1. Nonest factum; 2.

THIS was an action of ejectment, and was tried at the Dutchess . . _ . •* circuit, m September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates. Joshua Hamlin died seised of the premises in question, leavthree sons, David, Joshua and Ephraim, and three daugh* ters, Lydia, Elisabeth, the wife of Townsend, and Mehitabel. Joshua died about 8 years ago, and Ephraim about 9 years ago, ^ the widow about a year since. Lydia also died, leaving four daughters, Phatbe, Elisabeth, Lydia and Mary.

THIS was an action on the case, tried at the Dutchess circuit,, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates.

THIS was an action of debt for a legacy. The cause was . _. t _ tried, at the Saratoga circuit, m September, 1812.

IK ERROR from the general sessions of the peace of Clinton ° 1 COUllty. The defendant was indicted, at the general sessions of the peace ™ ^y °f Clinton, for aiding and assisting to escape out of gaol, one Peter Bfandeville, committed “on suspicion of having been accessary to the breaking the house of Peter Sailley, Esq. of Pittsburgh, with intent to commit felony.”

THIS was an action of debt on a judgment, obtained in the court . m. of common pleas of Washington county, in 1804. 1 he declaralion was filed in May term, 1811; and an imparlance given to August term, when the defendant, pleaded mil tiel record; a replication joined issue thereon; a day was given to the next Octobcr term, to bring in the record, See. and continuances were entereci from term to term, until October term, 1812, and in the vacation following, the defendant…

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the pos °f lot No. 72. in the township of Aurelius, in the county 0f Cayuga. The cause was tried at the Cayuga circuit, in June, 1812, before Mr. Justice Spencer. [See Jackson, ex dem. Bon~ > Sharp, 9 Johns. Rep. 163.] The plaintiff gave in evidence a patent for the lot in question, to Johi Bonnell, one of the lessors, dated 8th July, 1790.

THIS was an action of slander, brought against the defendant, for charging the plaintiff with having sworn falsely, and having committedper/iti^, in swearing out three attachments, in three suits, before a justice, under the act for the recovery of debts to the value of 25 dollars, in which suits the above parties were plaintiff and defendanti The cause was tried at the Ulster circuit in November, 1812.

CHIS was an action of trover. The cause ,was tried at the, New-York sittings, in November, 1812, before Mr. Justice Spencer. - i The plaintiffs’ counsel, in opening the cause, stated that the action was brought to-recover damages for the conversion of a promissory note, made by the plaintiffs, partners in trade, under the firm of John Murray & Sons, dated the 26th of July, 1812, by which they promised to pay, sixty days after date, to William Swan, or order, 2,800 dollars,…

THESE were actions of assumpsit, on two policies of insurance, one on ship, the other on freight. The ship, called the Canton, was valued at 20,000 dollars, and the freight at 15,000 dollars. The policy was dated the 21st March, 1812. The voyage insured was at and from Charleston to Liverpool.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration was for goods supplied by the plaintiffs to John and George Sherman, at the request of the defendant; and also for goods sold generally by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Plea, non assumpsit. The cause was tried at the Albany circuit, before Mr. Justice Thompson.

<p>A plea that the plaintiff is an alien ene= my, residing in the enemy’s country, &c. may conclude either' in abatement or in bar, tho* as the disability of the plaintiff is temporary, it would seem that the plea ought to conclude la abatement.</p> <p>pleaded inbar ment, &theC not abate a the return of aUen’s right of action *s only suspended during the war.</p>

This was an action of ejectment, tried before the Chief Justice, at the Montgomery couns, in September, 1812 The declaraflon contained a demise from Jog ith B~r&t19 and IIan~rtah his wife, to the p1aintifl~, from the 1st May, 18O~, for, 15 years; and similar demises from William J~1i1ea, Erastas Mil~a, ~Tosiah Fosgate and his wi~e~ Damiel B~ Miles and Mary Miles~ It was proved that Daniel Miles died in possession of the pre. mises in question, in the summer, or early in the…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff, as endorsee of a promissory note, dated the 24th of July, 1810, by hich the defendants promised, 60 days after date, to pay to the order of William Gere and Robert Elliot, one thousand dollars at the Mohawlc Bank. Value received. It was admitted, at the búal, that the plaintiff claimed in behalf of Robert Elliot, the one half of the note with interest.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The cause was tried at ■the Otsego circuit, the 11th of September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Thompson, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. A motion was now made in arrest of judgment, and also for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against law and evidence. The motion for a new trial was refused, the court not thinking it a case which justified their interference, especially after a second verdict.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the freio-ht of , , - ° the ship Etheia, valued at 2,000 dollars, “ at and from New-York to the port of Sisal, in the province of Yucatan, with liberty to proceed to one other port in said province, not to the southward of Laguna de Términos, nor to the eastward of Cape Catoche, and back to New-York. The facts in this case were the same as those stated in the case 0f the policy on the ship.

J. DUER, for the plaintiffs, moved to set aside the report of the . r . . . - referees in this cause. It was an action ot covenant. Articles ot agreement were entered into between the parties relative to making a turnpike road.

f THIS was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, who are merchants at Liverpool, in England, as acceptors of a bill of exchange, for 400 pounds sterling, dated Nem-York, 8th of October, 1810, drawn on the defendants by W. JEf. Jephson, payable to T. Proctor or order, in London.

<p>IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Oneida county. Turner sued the plaintiffs in error in the court below, as partners; but two only were taken and brought into court, who pleaded, praying judgment of the plaint and declaration, that the same may be quashed, for that the promises stated by the plaintiff, if any, were made by the defendants jointly with one Henry M‘Neil, and not by the defendants alone, &c. The plaintiff below replied, that the promises were made by the defendants alone, and not by them and M‘Neil jointly, and issue was joined thereon. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, on which the court below gave judgment.</p> <p>The bill of exceptions stated that on the trial,' the defendants, in support of their plea, offered to prove, by the declarations of the defendants, and of JPJSeil, when they were all present together, previous to the time the plaintiff's action accrued, and before the commencement of this suit, that they all declared and acknowledged themselves aa partners, and held themselves out to the world as such. This evidence was objected to by the counsel for the pIaintifi~, and was ~verruled by the court below~</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The counts were special on the statute. The meeting-house of the congregation was built by subscription; and for the purpose of raising money for its completion, the pews were sold at public auction, by a vote of the congregation, free of rent. The sums bid for the pews were paid by the purchasers to the trustees, and applied towards finishing the building.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, daied the 16 th of April, 1810, payable six months after date, to John. Lord or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. The defen<jant was an attorney of this court. The caption of the bill against him was of January term, 1812, without any special memorandum, and was served on the defendant, in vacation, about ^le 1st °-‘ May.

THIS was an action of debt brought against the defendant, ag sheriff of the county of Otsego, for tire escape of one Stephen Clark, in execution. The cause was tried at the Otsego circuit, ^eP^) 1812, before Mr. Justice Thompson.

THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover 50 acres of land, in Jericho, in the county of Chenango. The cause was tried at the Chenango circuit, the 16th September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of jDutchess county. Carman sued Herrick in the court below, on a promissory note, dated 25th February, 1811, made by John Ryan, paya]ye to Lawrence Carman Sr Co. or order, for 138 dollars and 75 cents, payable 30 days alter date. The note was endorsed to Herrick, who endorsed the same to Carman, the plaintiff below, Nt the trial, the making the note, the endorsement, demand of payment, Sec. were proved.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated' that on the 9th of July, 1807, a certain discourse ivas had and ¿ between the parties, of and concerning the making of the miles of the Chenango Turnpike Road, which road the defendants had before that time contracted with the Chenango Turnpike Corporation to make; and the defendants agreed, ^t ^ ^ie plaintiff would advance them a certain sum towards making the road, and help them to complete the road, that he should…

<p>a<FVevseJrs ot‘ B- asa'iisf tfi6 overseers of N., from an ”^®ai "of T" Pau|,ei'>t0 l.1lp ^esstons, it was pioved, per had pur-" chased a lot of land in B., alleged to he the place of his last legal settlement, for 2SO dollars, the consideration expressed in the deed; and that he mortgaged it back to the grantor for 200 dollars. It was held that the overseers of N. might show, by parol, that the consideration had not been paid by the pauper for the land.</p> <p>Though parties and privies are estopped from contradicting a written instrument by parol p- oof, the rule does not apply to strangers who have an interest in knowing the real truth of the case.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, for 375 dollars, dated 29th October, 1810, made by the defendant, payaable to Elisha Morrell, or order, 60 days after date, and endorsed by Morrell. The cause was tried at the New-York sittings, m November 2812, before Mr. Justice Spencer. The malting and endorsement of the note were proved.

^ MOTION was made in behalf of Deming for the allowance . 4 ® of a writ of habeas corpus to bring up his mfant children, in the custody of their mother and one J. 8. ^ appeared that Deming, in June, 1810, was convicted of passing counterfeit money, and sentenced to the state prison for life, having, at the time, a wife and two children, and some property.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the cargo of the schooner Paulina, on a voyage from New-York to Falmouth, to wit, upon 150 boxes of Havanna sugar, weighing 59,499 pounds net, valued at 6,650 dollars; 5 hampers of mace, weighing 757 pounds net, valued at 5,700 dollars, and 4 tons of log-wood, valued at 250 dollars.

<p>Bauenkiil, in ^VashingJonl though not enumerated in the statute declaring certain rivers and streams public highways-; (sess. 24. c. 186. s. 34.) yet, having been used ao such, by the public, for the purpose of rafting down boards and timber, for more than 26 years, the usage has created a public right, and an action will, therefore, lie against the owner of a milk dam fox so obstructing -the navigation cs to injure the raft of the plaintiff, in passing over.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Barnum d Wentworth, before the justice, by a warrant taken out on bis oath. He declared for work and labour, &c. and on a special agreement for threshing wheat. The defendant pleaded that before the issuing of the warrant in the cause, he had comd an action of trespass on the case, by summons, against Barnum, and which had been returned personally served.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Croul brought an action on the case against Bunn, before the justice, He declared for damages done by the defendant to a certain trunk and clothes. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the writ was in cose, and the declaration in trespass ; but the justice overruled the motion. The defendant then pleaded the general issue. The evidence was not set forth in the return.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Dumbolton sued Baker, before the justice, by summons, in trespass on the case.

<p>IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. B. & B. sued S. <§• S. before the justice. The declaration was for diverting the water-course of the plaintiffs, by which the plaintiffs were disturbed in the enjoyment of their grist-mill. The defendants, S. <§• B., pleaded not guilty. It was proved that the defendants erected their saw-mill and dam, in 1806, across the Delaware river, about fifty, rods above the mill-dam of the plaintiffs, which had been built and used for above 18 years before,. The defendants took the water out of the river at their dam into a race-way on the northwesterly side of the river, and which emptied again into the river, about 40 rods below the dam of the plaintiffs. The defendants owned the land on the westerly side of the river, and the plaintiffs’ i , t mill is on the southeasterly side; and they also take the water through a race-way which is returned again into the river below the mouth of the race-way of the defendants. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, on which the justice gave judgment,</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Sawtet sued Harris on before the justice; and declared that at the spe and request of H. he, S., had become special bail ™ * °f E- P. for one Foot, in a suit brought against him by one Hallenback; by reason whereof he had laid out and expended a large sum of money, and performed labour* &c. in the-pursuit of the said Foot, in order to surrender him in that suit, &c. Defendant pleaded the general issue.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. B. and others brought an action of assumpsit against Hicks, before the justice. The cause was hied by a jury.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Vox , , . „ brought an action of assumpsit against Moore before the justice d declared that the defendant Moore was indebted to him for minister, for two years, to the amount-of 4 dollars, which Moore promised to pay at the rate of two dollars a year, The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, with notice that the church, which the plaintiff below was minister, was incorporated, and ^ad trustees appointed pursuant to the statute for…

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. H. S' A« d D. before the justice.

, IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Weaver sued Hasbrouck, by summons, “ to answer to the complaint of W., in behalf of himself and of the people, &c. in a plea of debt to his damage of 25 dolíais.” W. declared, “ as well for himself as the people, &c. against H. that he render to the plaintiff 25 dollars, which from him he unjustly detains,” for that in violation of the statute, &c. at the town of M. the defendant sold liquors without any license, &c. (Sess.…

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Baker brought an action on the case against Hasbrouck, before a justice, recover damages, which the plaintiff had sustained, by reason of the non-attendance of the defendant, as a witness, in a certain cause tried before a justice, in which the plaintiff was defendant, ant* in which Hasbrouck was regularly subpoenaed as a witness, The defendant pleaded the general issue.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Williams brought an action against Dunbar before the justice, for medicine administered by the plaintiff below, and attendance as a physician, on a negro slave, belonging to the defendant. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. The plaintiff proved his bill to be reasonable, and it was admitted that he kept honest books, and that the person he attended was the slave of the defendant.

<p>S. signed a •which,"tor vahe promised to paint the house of L, in a particular manner, specified in the writing; and 15. endorsed on the paper a promise that the agreement should be executed in a maúner ln an action of sl agamst h. Igreemtiluiy way of sei-o#; anu claimed damages for its non-performance ; it was held to be a valid contract between S. and L, which might be set off.</p> <p>A justice cannot reject evidence, or act from Jiis own personal knowledge of the truth of the fagi&</p>

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Delaware county. The plaintiff below brought an action of trespass for a horse. The defendant pleaded not guilty.

THIS was ah action for a libel, published by the defendant in She newspaper called the u Albany Regisler.” The same cause 7 . e\ T i came before the court, on a demurrer to the plea, (see 9 Johns. Rep. 314.) when the court gave judgment in favour of the defendant, with leave, however, to the plaintiff to withdraw his demurrer and reply.

THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, Sc. The declaration contained counts for entering the plaintiff’s dwell* ing-house, and breaking open his doors, &c. and taking away 93 barrels of flour, &c, and also in trespass de bonis asportalis, Sc. in taking and carrying away 100 barrels of flour.

THE plaintiff declared on an agreement in wilting, dated the 23d March, 1811, which stated that Jones had contracted with Gardner, “ to convey to him a farm of land situated in the town Qf Hinsdale, on which Samuel Gilbert now lives,” on the fob lowing terms, to wit, 1,820 dollars, to be paid as follows, to wit, 500 dollars on the first of May next, 300 dollars in two years thereafter, 300 dollars in three years, 300 dollars in four years, 300 dollars in five years, and 120…

THIS was an action of ejectment, and was tried at the Columbia circuit, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The only point raised by the defendant at the trial was, that he titled to a notice to quit before suit. He proved that he ^ possession of the premises for seven or eight years, and had paid an annual rent to Benjamin Birdsall, who, during ^e same time, paid rent annually for the premises to the lessors of thfe plaintiff.

THIS was an action of debt on a bond, conditioned that the defendant Clossey “ should well and faithfully perform the duties assigned to, and trusts reposed in him, as first teller,” &c. Plea, non damnificatus.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the cargo of the ship Henry and Francis, and on the freight of the same ship, on a voyage from Marseilles to New-York.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the cargo of the ship Eagle, from Philadelphia to St. Sebastians. The Py contained the following clause: “Warranted American P'ty> and not to proceed or abandon, if warned that the port is blockaded, but may proceed to a permitted port.

THIS was art August, 1813. of slander. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Dutchess circuit, in September, 1812.

THE plaintiff, a merchant residing at New-York, consigned goods to the defendants, merchants at Martinique. The plaintiff brought an action of assumpsit, to recover of the defendants the proceeds of the goods so consigned. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, the 10th of November, 1812, before •Ti/r T cf ijlr.

THIS was an action of trover, for 11 barrels of pearl ashes. The cause was tried at the Chenango circuit, the 18th of September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, for 120 dollars and 65 cents, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: In March, i^b, a contract was made between the plaintiff and one S'.

THIS was an action of tro ver, for four cases and a bale of ho- • t „ , yiery* The declaration was in the usual form. 1 he defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty, with notice of his discharge under the insolvent act; 2.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried before Mr. Justice ^ “ Thompson, at the Green circuit, in August, 1812. The plaintiff claimed title to a lot of land in the village of Catskill, which the defendant possessed, as tenant to John Livingston.

THIS was an action for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff, to recover the amount of the money drawn as a prize in a lottery. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, in October, 1811, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

THIS was an action of covenant. The cause was tried at the Chenango circuit, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, for 73 dollars and 13 cents, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: The defendant stated that by articles of agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, dated the 23d of September, 1809, the defendant covenanted, for the consideration of two thousand dollars, to convey to…

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the usual money counts. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non as-sump sit; 2. Non assumpsit infra sex annos; 3.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Westchester county. Sing brought an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, an¿ for treading down the grass, destroying his fences, &c. against Annin, in the court below.

SLOSSON, at the last term, (the 6th Mar/,) moved that Isaac , Clcison, George Depeyster, and William A* Thompson3 show cause, by the 14th Way, why Gilbert Shotwell and Samuel P either of them, should not be restored to the possession of a dwelling-house and farm, in Yonkers, wherefrom they • „ , or one or them was expelled on the 5th Bebruary last.

THIS was an action of assumpsit brought to recover the ° , , . amount of 500 bales of cotton, alleged to be shipped by tne plain-from New-Orleans, on account of John Taber 8? Son, of ^ the state of Massachusetts, upon the promise of the defendant to pay for the same with the incidental disbursements and expenses. The declaration was for goods sold and delivered, ^ usual money counts.

dN the 21 st of July, 1813, Nathan Williams, Esq. one ot the commissioners of this court, allowed a habeas corpus, en- * 1 dorsed “ by the statute,” and directed to “ Isaac Chauncey, commandant of the navy of the United States on Lake Ontario„ ^ *° Morgan.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Columbia circuit, in October, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

THIS was an action of ejectment for lands in the town of Gallatin, in the. manor of Livingston. The cause was tried in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The title of the lessor to the manor of Livingston was admit- ted.

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover possession of a lot of ground in Chamber-street, in the 6th ward of the city of New-York. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Van Hess, at the Hew-York sittings, on the 12th December, 1811. The case of Smith, ex dem.

THIS was an action of ejectment for land in Greenwich, in Washington county, and was tried at the Washington circuit, in ^> 1812. The defendant took a lease of the premises (being lot No. 3. in a tract of land granted to William Kettle and Come-Hus Cuyler) from Henry Cuyler, on the 27th April, 1789, for 5 which was prolonged, by a memorandum on the lease, for ten years more.

THIS was an action of debt on a bond, conditioned “ that if the above bounden trustees of the presbyterian society of Yorktomn, shall well and truly furnish the aforesaid George Ferris, if necessity requires, with a comfortable dwelling-house, 20 by 30 feet, with a small kitchen, then the above obligation to be void,” 8cc. The defendants pleaded the general issue, with notice of special matter to be given in evidence at the trial.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Whitmarsk brought an action of trespass quare clausumfregit against Cutting, f entering his close and carrying away a quantity of wheat and The defendant pleaded not guilty; and there was a trial by jury.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Vanden- * * “ burgh brought an action of assumpsit against Beach, before the justice, and declared for money paid, laid out, &c. for the defendant. There was a trial by jury.

<p>IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. K. and H, sued L. on the 29th oí April, 1811, before a justice, and declared ^ him for unlawfully raising and keeping up a mill-dam conto the lands of the plaintiffs, whereby they were overflowed, &c. The defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty; 2. The statute of limitations; 3. A justification under deeds from Kiersted, and" Everadus Bogardus, the owner of the lands, by virtue of which he had a right to keep up the dam, provided the dam 7vas 7iot raised, and averred that the dam had not been raised, at least, since the plaintiffs claimed the land. There was a trial by jury, on the 17th of May. The plaintiffs proved that the dam had been raised by. one V. 12 years ago, and that it overflowed the land of the plaintiffs, and that they had exercised acts of ownership on the land. The justice ruled that it was competent for the plaintiffs to show by parol proof, that they were themselves in possession of the land overflowed: and the plaintiffs thereupon called a witness. The defendant offered to prove that the witness offered was 7i07i co7npos, and that he had been for some time deranged; but the evidence was overruled by the justice. And the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs below, and assessed their damages to 10 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Youle brought an action against Brotherton, before the justice, for damage done to a carriage of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had before sued him for the same cause of action, and had been nonsuited, and that the costs of the nonsuit were still unpaid. The justice, for this cause, dismissed the suit.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Cary sued Campbell and Coolc, before the justice, on a promissory note. The defendants pleaded non assumpsit and a set-off. There was a trial by jury. The justice certified that the note was dev u v o livcred to him by the plaintiff when the issue was joined; but that on search he could not find it, and that he permitted the plaintiff io give parol proof of the note, though the defendants objected to it.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hull sued Bennett before the justice, for a breach of promise, in not delivering to the plaintiff, on board of his vessel, 100 barrels of apples, whenever the vessel should be ready^to receive them, and the defendant was then to receive payment1 in liquors* &c. out of the plaintiff’s store.

IN ERB.ORs on certiorari, from a justice’s court; Brown sited Credit, before the justice, in trespass, for killing the plaintiff’s dog. The defendant pleaded not guilty. There was a trial by jury. The plaintiff proved that the defendant confessed that he shot the plaintiff’s dog, who assaulted him in the main road; and the defendant, at the trial, also confessed the fact, and the necessity of killing the dog.

<p>IN ERROR, on certiorari from a justice’s court. Irwin sued Knox, before the justice, and demanded damages for the defendant’s carelesly leaving salt in the public highway, by which his steer was killed; for breaking a plough; goods sold, &c.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded that all the charges in the plaintiff’s declaration, except the last, had been Submitted to a former jury, and demanded a nonsuit, which was refused by the justice.</p> <p>The defendant asked for an adjournment of the trial, but offered no security. There was a trial by jury. The defendant set up the former trial in bar. The plaintiff offered to show that fee jury on the former frial did not take the charge of the toss of the steer into their consideration, for want cI proof, and which was proved by one of the former jury; but it appeared that the former jury, after retiring to consider of their verdict, talked some time about the steer. After proof of the other parts of the plaintiff’s demand, the jury, in this case, found a verdict for the plaintiff) for 23 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.</p>

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Smith, as administrator, &c. sued Lockwood, before the justice, in assumpsit, on a promissory note given’to the testator, for 15 dollars; and declared upon it as upon a lost' note. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and a set-off. The cause was tried before the justice.

A PETITION had been presented by E. Gardenier, widow, „ , , «c. to the surrogate oi Columbia county, pursuant to the act, (sesSi 29. c. 168. s. 12.) stating the seisin of her husband, and praying the appointment of admeasurers of dower, See.

A MOTION was made to have the demises of H. Roseboom$ and of several other lessors of the plaintiff in this suit, struck out 0f the declaration, on affidavits that they had no interest whatever in the premises, having alienated all their right, title, &c,

THIS was an action of replevin. It was commenced by plaint, in the Westchester court of common pleas, and removed by ceriiorari into this court. The plaint and declaration, in the court below, was for taking and detaining, by the defendant, 24 sheep The plaintiff replied to the first avowry: 1.

THIS was an action of ejectment for lot No. 39. in the town °f Homer, in the county of Courtlandt. The lessors of the pkmitiff are the heirs of Robert C. Livingston, who died in Au-£us^’ The lot was originally granted to John G. Guth, a soldier in the late war. The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed, dated the 5th of July, from John G. Guth to Robert C. Livingston, for the lot ire question.

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover part of ■200 acres of land in Hebron, in the county of Washington. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Washington cirCtiit, in June, 1812.

THIS was an action of ejectment for lot No. 34. in Whitehall, in Washington county. The cause was tried at the Washington circuit, before Mr. Justice Yates, in June, 1812. ’ ’ It was admitted that the lessors of the plaintiff were heirs at law of Moses Martin, deceased; and that by an act of the legislature, (sess. 7. c. 64.) Philip Skeene and Andrew P. Skeeile, were attainted by name; and the act of attainder was read in evidence.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff. The cause was tried at the Columbia circuit, in October, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

THIS was an action of trespass, for cutting down and carrying away a turnpike gate, standing within the corporation of Hudson, and across the turnpike road of the plaintiffs. It was tried at the Columbia circuit, in October, 1812, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

<p>^j1® P**} sive =««1 reproachful words to a justice relative to hto judicial conduct, though not while he was acting as a justice, and the justice, after the party had left his office, issued a warrant commanding him to he taken and committed to gaol, until he should find sureties for his appearance at the next general sessions of the peace, and for his good behaviour in the mean time, and the party was arrested on the warrant, but immediately dis* charged on giving bail before another justice; in an action of trespa-s, bte. against the juftie- who issued the warrant, it was held that the justice had power to inquire the s.arty using the wo, ds, to find security for the peace and for his good behaviour, and in default thereof to comm,! t<im: and that that pat l of the warrant which required the part) to lie committed to gaol, until, 8tc, not having been executed, might bs rejected, and the warrant be good as to the residue,</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded, 1, Non assumpsit; 2.

THIS was an action of covenant. The plaintiff in Ms decla- . *■ ration stated an agreement, in which me defendant covenanted to Put UP and enclose for him, (the plaintiff,) a house and kitchen, &c. according to a draft, &c. in a good, substantial and workmanlike manner, &c. on or before the 1st October (then) instant; that ' ' ¿lie plaintiff was to furnish the timber and materials, &c.; and he averred that he did furnish all the timber and materials, &c. requested, according…

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note. The _ . . . cause was tried at the Albany circuit, m April, 1813, before Mr.Justice Yates.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Gardner brought an action of assumpsit against Thompson, before the On the return of the summons, the defendant did boí appear. The plaintiff demanded a balance due from the defendant on the taxes of the last year, the plaintiff having been col^ecior f°r the town that year; and offered in evidence the assessmentr0^ the taxes of the town for the last year, and a warrant of the supervisors to the plaintiff to collect them.

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Pierce brought an action of trespass de bonis asporlatis, $-c. against Hubbard, before the justice. The trespass, in entering the plaintiff’s house and taking the goods as stated in the plaintiff’s declaration, was proved. The defendant justified the taking under two executions against the goods of the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, as a constable, to be executed.

IN ERR.OR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Richard-• son> Taft, M‘Dowell and Todd sued Campbell, before the justice, and declared that whereas the defendant, on the fill of Jonuary, 1813, at, &c. set up a mark, the size of a horse, at the distance of 60 rods, for the plaintiffs to shoot at, at 25 cents f°r each shot, and which if hit by them the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of 20 dollars; that the plaintiffs did shoot at the mark so set up by the…

THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover lot No. 84. in the township of Camillus. The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, in Jims, Í313. The plaintiff read in evidence an exemplification of á patent} dated the 8th July, 1790, for the lot in question, to Lodowick Bunt, a soldier in the late war.

THESE were actions of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiffs in the first suit, to recover their fees as attorneys and counsellors in the supreme court, and by the plaintiff, in the second, for his fees as solicitor and counsel in the court of chancery. The cause was tried at the Oneida circuit, on the 3d June, 1813, before Mr. Justice Yales.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Oneida circuit, in June, 1813, before Mr. Justice Yates. • Letters patent under the colonial government, dated the 12th of June, 1771, were granted to William Bayard and fifty-four others, of whom William Kane and A. M‘Bougal were two, for 50,000 acres of land, known by the name of Freemasons’ pa{enf and formerly called the Oneida purchase.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained *lv0 counts; the first on a promissory note in the usual form; and °thei' for money paid, money lent, and money had and received to the use of the plaintiffs.

THIS was an action of debt for the escape of one G. Gardner, arrested by the defendant on a ca. sa. at the suit of the defendant, ^ # . for 165 dollars and 55 cents. The declaration was in the usual form. The defendant pleaded, 1. Nil debet; 2. Recaption on foes^ Pursuit; 3.

<p>C. leased a <¡né" year, to fronTthe61st •April, isos, at th e rent of so dollars, endab'ofat the agreed to renew the lease year, provided Tvaat'the farm for his own</p> <p>On the 19th m8™lG.r’entTnder oVthe lease^ ^ by rendered v.p to'c^to'houi had ^ not been made, holding verthelesSjliayear’s^renT- and ^ngrcebig take aú lawful recovery'the thereof, according to the lease.</p> <p>G. having continued in tiuimautumn of 1808, sowed wheat and ryes and in October, sold the wheat, he. then growing, to B., who enclosed it with a fence. In November following, G. quitted the possession of the premises, and made the surrender to C.</p> <p>C. in Jhigust, 1809, took possession of the wheat and rye before it was reaped; and in an action ©f replevin brought by B., C. justified the taking as a distress for the rent in arrear. It was held, that by the surrender, there was an extinguishment of the estate of the lessee, and the lessor had no right to distrain, the relationship of landlord and tenant having entirely ceased; and that his only remedy was on the special agreement by G. to pay the rent. But that B., the plaintiff, had no right of action for the wheat and rye, because they became the property of C. after the expiration of the lease, G. not being entitled to the crop as emblements.</p> <p>Where an avowry did not set forth the estate, of which the avowant was seised, it was held bad, though the plaintiff had pleaded over, and a verdict was taken on the issue joined ; and the judgment was arrested, on that ground.</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment for lands in the town of Ma- . . . „ makatmg, in the county ol Sullivan. The cause was tried at the Sullivan circuit, before Mr. Justice Spencer, the 2d of Sepfeml,er 1812, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject e e , . J to the opinion of the court on a case made, with liberty to either party to turn the same into a special verdict.

THIS was an action of ejectment for lands in Montgomery, in Orange county.

THIS was an action of debt on a judgment in this court, entered on a bond and warrant, dated the 31st of January, 1811. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave in evidence a discharge under the act, entitled “ An act for the benefit of insolvent debtors and their creditors,” passed the 3d of April, 1811.

THIS was an action for a libel. The cause iras tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Albany circuit, in April, 1812.

THIS was an action for a libel, for printing and publishing, in a newspaper called the Northern Budget, on the 15th November, 1808, a certain letter, signed Gilbert D. Young, addressed to the plaintiff. The libel was set forth in the declaration. The letter as published, was introduced with the following note to the printer: “ To the editor of the Northern Budget. The enclosed advertisement having been refused a place in the Troy Gazette, I send it to you for publication.

THIS was an action of trespass and false imprisonment, brought by the plaintiff, being under 21 years of age, by his next friend. The defendant pleaded not guilty, with notice of a special justification. The cause was tried at the Albany circuit, in April, 1813,before Mr. Justice Yates.

THIS was an action of ejectment for lot No. 6. in the town of T_ e ° Hannibal, m the county of Onondaga, At the trial of the cause a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the following case: The plaintiff gave in evidence letters patent for the lot in ques-,1 , r -r , „ * * non, dated 3d ot July, 1790, to Caleb Cornwall; also a deed dated 2d of April, 1783, from Cornwall to Edward Taylor, as follows: “ Know, See. that I, Caleb Cornwall, of, &c. have…

<p>Where a Sub-chaser^E deei1 is reKiitereu, has notice, at the purchase, of a tetedU<ieui'iS" the prior deed will have the preference i purchase,with n°tll;¡! 1101 i.< e deed, being deemed Irandulent: -md o^nXe^uid fyav-'\ is. tos-court of jaw, comt of c!piit ty*</p>

THIS was an action of trespass, assault and battery, &c. The defendant pleaded that he was, before the filing of the plaintiff’s bill, and at this time is, an attorney of the court of common picas of Washington county, &c. attending to divers pleas and affairs, &c. of persons prosecuting and defending them as their attorney, &c. and that he and all other attorneys of that court, while so prosecuting and defending, according to the custom of the same court, &c. should not,…

ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Borland sued Simmons before the justice, to recover 25 dollars, delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, as a stakeholder, on a bet on the event of a race to be run between two horses.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, made by'the defendant stDemararu, in South America, for 1,050 guilders, Holland currency, the 15th September, 1792, and payable to the plaintiff or order two months after date. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and non actio accrevit infra sex annos.

<p>-laied 5Ui^of ■April, 1810, fscss 33 o 381.) concernriasvl16 Soft*" SmreiS\hlt' “ all leases of and all transfers thereof, should be recorded within 24 hours after the execution thereof, in the town clerk’s office, 5sc. or that in default the same should be “deemedvoids” ‘that7neglect to have an astugnment fora lease record-ft ’vóid’ mdy1 j&Tpuithif Sc?" (stfs si 0.76.8.13.) "</p>

IN ERROR,, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Van Vechien brought an action against Wooster, before the justice, for money had and received to the use of the plaintiff.

IN ERE OB, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Nichols brought an action before the justice against Dayton and others, assignees of Elisha Nichols, an insolvent debtor; and stated his demand to be for moneys paid at the request of the insolvent, to enable him to obtain his discharge, and for moneys lent to the insolvent and his assignees, on request.

jjyT jgRROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Cornwall brought an action of trespass on the case against Freeman, before the justice, for taking hay belonging to the plaintiff, under pretence of being pathmaster, See.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of Washington 1 _ ° county. Walker brought an action of trover, in the court below, J ’ against M'Lean and Ferine, for a promissory note, dated 2d of ®cptember, 1808, made by Asa and Truman Wilber, by which they promised to deliver to the plaintiff 200 bushels of merchantable wheat, at Utica, on the 20th of February, 1811, of the value of 200 dollars. Plea not guilty, with notice of special matter to be given in evidence at the trial.

THESE were actions of ejectment, for lot No. 4. in Young's patent, and tried at the last 'Otsego circuit, before Mr. Justice r o’ Thompson. mi,. -LUC The suits were commenced the 18th January, 1809 plaintiff produced in evidence the following conveyances; cf‘patent £o Frederick Young and 19 other persons,r dated 11th October, 1765, including the lot in question; a -release from four of the patentees to Peter Du Bois-, dated 9th September,-1766; a release from five other of…

THIS was an action on the case for a false return. The cause . was tried at the Oneida circuit, in June, 1813, before Mr. Justice tz , ates. The plaintiffs gave in evidence the record of a judgment and a testatum fi.fa. in their favour against Reuben Tomer, for 4,000 dollars of debt, and 15 dollars and 25 cents costs.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Schenectady c'rcu‘b September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Yates. By the consent rule, the defendants were admitted as landlords in the place of I. Stiles, as to such of the lands as should be proved at the trial 1° be in the possession of Robert Smith.

THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover lot No. 1. in the subdivision of lotNo. 48. in Dry dm, in Cauuga county. The , 17 •' s 7 , plaintiff claimed title under a mortgage, executed by ¡Samuel Clark to the lessor of the plaintiff, for the premises in question, dated 3d October, 1806, which was duly recorded the 10th October, 1806. The mortgagor was in possession at the time of exe- , cutmg the mortgage.

A WHIT of habeas cormts was allowed in this case, in a for-z i • n ini r mer term, (see ante, 232- S. C.) to bring up the mtant children ot Deming. On the return of the writ, it appeared, in addition to the facts before stated, that Deming, at the time (June 1810) he was convicted and sentenced to the state prison for life, had a wife and three children, the eldest of whom was only 5 years old.

A M0TI0N was made for a mandamus, to be directed to the president, directors and company of the Mechanics’ Bank, commanding them to permit Morris Shipley and others, assignees of Samuel Kip, to transfer eight shares of the capital stock of the bank standing on the books of the company.

THIS was an action of covenant. The plaintiff declared ore a bill of sale, by which the defendant, in consideration of 175 dollars, granted, bargained and sold to the plaintiff, “ a negro woman slave, named Sarah, aged about thirty years, being of sound wind and limb, and free from all disease,” to have and to hold, &c. And the defendant, by the same instrument, covenanted to warrant and defend the slave, so sold to the plaintiff, against the defendant arid all other persons.

T. A. EMMET presented the petition of Sharp, and moved „4 1 L ___ that commissioners be appointed to make partition, &c. The affidavit of the service of the petition and notice, stated that copies had been personally served on Joseph Pell and on Sarah HeZ/, as the testamentary guardians of Daniel Trembly.

A MOTION was made, in behalf of the defendant, that the inquest taken in this cause and all subsequent proceedings therein, *3e set as^e. Issue was joined in the cause the 18 th May last, ant*on the same day, the defendant’s attorney received a notice of trial for the Onondaga circuit, to be held on the 31st day of May, being less than 14 days’ notice, to which, by the rules of the court, was entitled.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship Hudson, at and from New-York to her port of discharge, not blockaded, in Europe, and at and from thence back to New-York, with liberty to go to Cottenburg and wait for orders.

THIS was an action of assumpsit brought against the’defendant as endorsor of a promissory note, dated the 2SJ April, 1811, made by Samuel Kip for (£00 dollars, payable to the defendant ov order, thirty days after date. The cause was tried at the Nem-Torh sittings, in November last, before Mr. Justice Spencer.

THIS cause came before the court, on an appeal from a decree of the court of chancery. The appellants filed their bill in the court below, which stated, that letters patent were granted to Benjamin Griffen, a soldier in the second New- York re~irnent. in the revohtionarv war, f~r lot No. 51. in the township of Aurelius.

THESE causes came before this court on two appeals from the court of chancery. The latter was an appeal from an order of tiie 12th of September, 1310, and the first was a cross appeal from a decree of that court of the 23d of September, 1809. Both appeals were argued at the same time, and considered to* gether by the court.

THE respondents filed their bill m chancery, stating that a com» . . 4 . . - , . mission or bankruptcy was awarded against Comfort bands, the _ * S2d June, 1301, and that having been duly declared a bankrupt, Isaac Kibbe was chosen his assignee, to whom the estate and effects of the bankrupt were assigned the 18th July, 1801.

THIS cause came up, on a writ of error, from the supreme court. Hilton brought an action of debt, in the court below, against Jansen, sheriff of Ulster, for the escape of Edward Eltinge from the limits of the gaol liberties ; being in execution on a judgment obtained in August term, 1807, in favour of Hilton, for 810 dollars and 50 cents, debt, and 115 dollars and 43 cents, damages and costs. The writ was returned in August term, 1809. The declaration contained six counts.

THE defendant in error, as assignee of the sheriff, &c. brought an action of debt on the bond taken by the sheriff for the liberties of the gaol, which was originally commenced in the court of common pleas of the city and county of Albany, on the 15 th Novsmber, 1811. At the trial, in March, 1812, the jury found a special verdiet, on which the court of common pleas gave judgment for the plaintiff.

ON the 23d October, 1809, Warren, the respondent, filed a bill In chancery against Rathbone # Eon, the appellants.