Volume 2 — District of Columbia Reports

Indictment under the Act of Assembly of Maryland 1799, c. 75, § 2, for forging a draft upon Grustavus Higden, with intent to defraud him. Higden was offered as a witness on the part of the United States. He had paid the order.1 cited Peake,'L. E. 96, 97. But the Couet, (Thruston, J., absent,-) permitted the witness te.be sworn and examined. “Verdict, guilty. Motion in arrest of judgment, because, it is not averred in the indictment that Arnol had a right to draw. 2 East, Cr.

<p>Petition for freedom.</p>

<p>The declarations of an ancestor, while held as a slave, cannot he given in evidence. Declarations of deceased persons, that the ancestor was free, may be given in evidence, to show that the ancestor was in fact free, that is, not held in slavery. ■</p>

<p>, The plaintiff offered in evidence a receipt, to which there was a subscribing witness.</p>

■ Assault and battery. prayed the Court to suffer the jury to retire again and correct their verdict, and staled that such was the practice in Virginia. objected.

; Debt by payee against the maker of a promissory note. Veitch & Company had indorsed it specially to Robert Cooper & Company, which indorsement is erased, leaving the name of Yeiteh & Company. There was no evidence that the note had ever been in the possession of Cooper & Company, nor that Veitch & Company had paid Cooper & Company the amount, nor that it has been retrans-ferred.

to order the marshal to discharge him from the prison-bounds, the creditor having failed to furnish him with his daily allowance, according to the Act of Congress 3d March, 1803, § 5, [2Stat. at Large, 237.] The allowance was demanded by the marshal on the 25th of June, 1810, and refused. The daily allowance for prisoners in execution for debt, was fixed by a general order of the Court, on the 13th of June, 1803.

This was an action of debt upon a prison-bounds bond given to D. M. Randolph, marshal of the district of Virginia, upon a capias ad satisfaciendum issued from the Circuit Court of the United States,-for the district of Virginia. The marshal committed him to the custody of C. Turner, town-sergeant of Alexandria, on the 19th of April, 1800.

<p>This Court sitting in Alexandria, has only the powers of a County Court of Virginia in relation to ferries.</p>

Assumpsit, to pay for money advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant’s son by her first husband. prayed the court to instruct the jury that the first assumpsit being made while under covert-ure was void, (1 Strange, 94,) and that the subsequent assumpsit while sole, was void for want of consideration. contended that the promise being in writing, it was not necessary that there should be a consideration. 3 Call, 114.

The plaintiff being about to execute his writ of inquiry, Mr. C. Lee, for the defendant, moved for leave to plead the general issue. The mandate from the Supreme Court,'(seé 6' Cranch. 253,) is peremptory to render judgment for the plaintiff on the 1st count, and to award a writ of inquiry. But if it be within the discretion of the Court, they will not pérmit the defendant now to amend his pleadings, as the plaintiff’s principal witness is dead. cited 3 Bl. Com. 407 ; 1 Com.

<p>Upon the issue of “ no rent an-ear,” the plaintiff in replevin will not be permitted to show that the defendant “ had nothing in the. tenements.” *</p> <p>An assignment by the lessor, during the term, without attornment, does not prevent the lessor from distraining.</p> <p>In replevin for goods distrained for rent, the defendant cannot give evidence of the value of the use and occupation. .. -</p>

<p>Assize of bread.</p>

The jury found a general verdict. The defendant’s counsel, Mr. Key, moved in arrest of judgment, because, as he supposed, one of the counts was bad. The count was special, and stated that Morgan made his note to Reintzel or order, who indorsed it to the Bank of the United States.

This was an indictment for a burglary by breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Mr. Cassin. ' The building which the prisoner entered was a storehouse on a lot contiguous to the house in which Mr. Cassin lived; but not in the curtilage; his storekeeper, however, usually slept in it at night. contended that this was not a dwelling-house; but if it was, it was the dwelling-house of the storekeeper, and should have been so charged in the indictment.

Trespass. Assault, battery, and false imprisonment. The case was, that the defendant took up the plaintiff as a runaway, and carried him before a justice of the peace.

Debt on a judgment obtained in a State court in Kentucky. The defendant pleaded nil debet, and payment. When the cause was called for trial, Mr, Jones and Mr. Laiv, for the defendant, moved to be allowed to strike out the plea of nil debet, and to substitute the plea of nul tiel record. objected that it was now too late, and that nul tiel record is an improper plea.

Petition for freedom. offered the record of a recovery in a suit for freedom by Rosamond Bentley v. A. Addison, which the Court (Cranch, C. J., absent,) admitted as evidence, to prove the freedom of Mary Davis, the ancestor of the present petitioner, and of the said Rosamond Bentley, who was the petitioner’s aunt. contended that hearsay evidence would be- admissible, and, if so, a- fortiori a record which,although between other parties, goes to the same facts.

Assumpsit. Plea, plene administravit. H. Gunnell, one of the sureties in the administration-bond, was admitted as a witness for the defendant, to prove ■plene admi-nistravit. (Thruston, J., absent, and Fitzhugh, J., doubting.) Cranch, C. J., thought the interest too remote to disqualify the witness.

This was an action for money had and received. Dean was entitled to a dividend on premiums received by the Insurance Association, of which Tucker was chairman, and the plaintiff a member. The association had voted to advance to James Wilson a sum of money, on account of a claim for a loss. The advance was made, and Wilson’s note taken to refund in case the loss was not finally established. Dean objected to the advance.

This was a motion for judgment for taxes on a range of lots lying on the west side of West street, in Alexandria. The question was whether the jurisdiction of the corporation extended over those lots.

Debt upon a bond. The defendants pleaded that they first had notice of the plaintiff’s claim on the first of November, 1809, when they had fully administered ; and laid a rule on the plaintiff to reply. contended that under the Maryland Act of 1798, c. 101, ch. 8, § 7, he was not bound to reply.

<p>Tbe confession of a prisoner; taken upon oatb, cannot be used against bim upon bis trial.</p>

objected to a deposition taken under the Act of Congress on the part of the plaintiff, that the judge who took it did not certify that the testimony which was reduced to writing by him, was written in the presence of the witness. The Court (Thruston, J., absent,) overruled the objection.

<p>If the defendant die after office judgment and writ of inquiry awarded, his administrator cannot plead •plena administravit; nor any other plea which the original defendant himself could not have pleaded.</p>

Tkespass for beating a mare, and breaking her leg with an axe, so that she died. The defendants had been taken at different times and had pleaded severally. offered to examine the defendant Swann, as a witness for Plum, the other defendant. and contended that there could be but one judgment although the verdicts might be several.

Assumpsit, for balance of account. The defendant had charged the firm of G. & S., who were bakers, with groceries delivered to G. and originally charged to G. in the books of Tucker, but were got by G. and ordered by him to be' charged to the partnership account.

Assumpsit, for work and labor. contended that as the plaintiff had proved that the work and labor were done for the private banking association, called “ The Union Bank of Georgetown,” he was bound by the fourteenth article of that association, which declares that every person dealing with them “ disavows having recourse, on any pretence whatever, to the person, or separate property of any present or future member of this company,” and ■could not recover in this action…

<p>A surety in a replevin-bond is not a competent witness for the plaintiff in replevin, although he has an indemnifying bond.</p>

Indictment for selling negro Flora as a slave for life, who was entitled to freedom at a certain age. To support the prosecution the United States produced in evidence a mortgage from the defendant, Thomas, to a trustee for the security of Edgar Patterson, including, among other property, three negroes; one of whom, Flora, was entitled to freedom in about three years from the date of the deed. The other two were slaves for life. The deed made no distinction between them.

Upon a ease stated, the question was whether Tayloe had such a possession as would authorize him to bring' trespass. Varden, in 1806, took possession while the title to the freehold was in H. Lee, who never had any other seizin or possession than, what was conveyed .to him by the deed of bargain and sale from Pollock. Varden was in possession when Lee made the deed of bargain and sale to Tayloe, and continued in possession until this suit was brought.

moved to quash an execution issued by this Court upon an exemplification of a judgment upon a scire facias in Maryland, under the Act of Congress of the 27th of February, 1801, 13, [2 Stat. at Large, 107,] because the scire facias was issued subsequent to that date. The original judgment was in 1799 ; the judgment on the scire facias was in 1804, in Maryland.

Indebitatus assumpsit for work and labor. contended that as there was a letter stating the terms to be twelve dollars a month, and no count upon that special agreement, the plaintiff could not recover upon the indebitatus assumpsit. 1 Com. on Contr. 228.

This was a motion for a new trial in an action of replevin, for a female slave, in which there was a verdict for the defendant for 425 dollars damages. The jury have given the value of the slave in damages; and as there will be judgment for a return of the property the defendant will get twice the value of the slave. said he had contended for vindictive damages ; and the question is whether these damages are enormous.

The account was headed “ George W. Hight to Esias Tra-vers, Dr., for articles furnished by his direction, and he to be answerable for the payment thereof.” Among other items was a charge for rations for the officers, &e., (George W. Hight being a recruiting officer.) An affidavit of the plaintiff was indorsed on the paper, “ that the within account is just and true as stated.”

<p>Indictment for keeping a billiard-table for use, without license.</p>

Indictment for selling liquor as an ordinary-keeper, without license. The defendant justified under a written authority from Mrs. Smallwood, the widow and administratrix of Walter B. Small-wood indorsed on the original 'license which had been granted to him in his lifetime.

Indictment for cheating one Hollingshead of 80 dollars of his money-at cards, - (Faro.) The evidence was that bank-notes were won. Verdict, guilty — motion for a new trial. contended that bank-notes are not money; and cited Grigsby v. Oakes, 2 B. & P. 436; United States v. Morgan, in ^his Court, [1 Craneb, C. C. 278;] East, Cr. Law, 597, 598, 599. cited Miller v. Race, 1 Burr. 457; Rumball v. Murray, 3 T. R. 298; Wright v. Read, 3 T. R. 554; Cousins v. Thompson, 6 T. R. 335.

Assumpsit against the indorser of a promissory note due 23d and 26th July, 1809. The defendant lived in Georgetown, D. C., about three miles from the plaintiffs. •

Indictment under the Act of Assembly of Maryland, 1797, c. 11.0, for keeping a faro-table in a house occupied by a tavern-keeper. ■ There was a verdict for the defendant, at the last term, and a motion for a new trial, upon a question of law reserved, namely, whether the. defendant was liable to the fine of £50 imposed by the Act of Assembly, he having been fined by a justice of the peace 20 dollars under the by-law of the corporation of Georgetown, of March 7, 1806, which…

Assumpsit upon the promissory note of A. King and Company, dated September 7, 1810, at sixty days, payable to C. L. Nevitt or order, “ negotiable at the Bank of Alexandria,” indorsed by Nevitt to Preston, and by Preston to the plaintiff.

Case, for use and occupation of land at Oecoquan in Virginia. contended that an action for use and occupation did not lie before the statute,of 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, § 14, and that as that act is not in force in Virginia, no such action could be maintained in Alexandria county which is governed by the laws of Virginia as they existed in 1801. Bsp. N. P. 19; Green v. Harrington, Ilutt. 34; 1 Bac. Ab. 257, Gwillim’s Ed.; Wilkins v. Wingate, 6 T. R. 62; Brett v. Read, Cro. Car. 343.

Rule to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the Directors of the Mechanics’ Bank of Alexandria, to admit the complainants as directors, in the place of Mr. Langdon, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Weightman, who, it was alleged, were not practical mechanics at the time of their election.

Indebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The de-fence was, that the defendant paid the debt by a deed of land in Kentucky, with general warranty, which the plaintiff received in payment.

Indebitatus assumpsit and quantum meruit for work and labor done, and materials furnished. The defendant proved a special agreement in writing, not under seal. The plaintiff offered to prove that he did the work, &c., exactly according to the agreement, and that the price stated in the general indebitatus assumpsit, was the contract price. objected that the plaintiff could not recover upon the general count.

Debt on the administration bond of Crandell, who was a surety in Dyson’s administration bond, for the non-payment of a debt due from Dyson, the intestate, and for which a judgment had been recovered by Faxon against Dyson’s administratrix. The defendant pleaded that Dyson’s administratrix had performed the conditions of the administration bond.

The writ was returnable to November term, 1811. The plaintiff excepted to the appearance-bail at the first rules in January, 1812. At April rules there was a common order against the defendant and bail. At May rules the office judgment was confirmed. No motion was made at July term, 1812, for judgment against the marshal, but nil debet was joined for the surety.

The defendant was an attorney of this court. The indictment contained five counts. 1st.' For barratry; 2d, 3d and 4th, for being a common cheat and swindler, and fraudulently getting into his possession the property of his client, Jenkins; and 5th, for conspiracy with one McCutchen, to defraud McCutchen’s creditors, by means of his discharge under the insolvent law. moved the Court to quash the indictment, on the ground that it contained various counts requiring different…

<p>Indictment for stealing a horse.</p> <p>The horse was stolen in Maryland and brought by the prisoner into this county.</p>

Action on the case, upon the loan of a mare by the plaintiff to the defendant, who injured her by bad treatment and negligence.

This was an indictment for laboring to exact fees from the plaintiff, after having received them from tl^e, defend ant, on a warrant before a justice of the peace in the case of Carlin v. Weston.

<p>Witnesses may be removed while others are examined.</p> <p>One joint defendant, in an action of assumpsit, cannot confess judgment so as to enable him to testify in behalf of the other defendants.</p> <p>Information, received by an agent of the insured, of the loss of the property, before insurance effected, will not vacate the policy, unless that agent is the. agent who obtains the insurance, or gives the information to the person who obtains it.</p> <p>If several actions against several underwriters upon the same policy, are submitted to the same jury at the same time, and the jury find verdicts against some of them but wish to reconsider as to the others; those underwriters against whom the verdicts are found cannot be examined as witnesses for the others.</p>

<p>Demand, and notice to the indorser, are not necessary in Virginia, if the maker was so insolvent that they could be of no use to the defendant.</p>

Indictment for arson. Mr. Lufborough, the magistrate before whom the prisoner was brought, told him there was evidence enough to commit him at all events, and therefore he had better confess the whole truth, and that probably he would fare the better for it. The Court (nem. con.) refused to suffer the confession to be given in evidence against the prisoner.

Assumpsit against the indorser of Roddy’s note. The notary testified that he gave notice by letter. objected to evidence of its contents, because the defendant had not been called upon to produce the letter, and cited Chitty, 210 ; 1 Peake, L.E. 112 ; 2 lb. 221; 7 East, 385; Shaw v. Markham, Peake, N. P. 165. The practice has always been otherwise. Sanderson v. Judge, 2 H. Bl. 509.

Debt, for $3000, the damages assessed by an inquisition taken under the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1809, [2 Stat. at Large, 539,] incorporating “ The President, Directors, and Company of the Georgetown and Alexandria Turnpike Road.” This inquisition had been quashed by the Circuit Court, but their decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States, because the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of that matter. 6 Cranch, 233.

Covenant to pay money for land sold to the defendants. The defendants pleaded that in a former suit between the same parties, for the same cause of action, such proceedings were had that “ the said James Welch came into court and acknowledged that he would not further prosecute his said suit, and from thence altogether withdraw himself.” Whereupon the record states that Allen Prior, for whose use this action is brought, comes and says, &c., in substance, that Welch being…

This was an action on the case founded upon the Virginia laws of 17th December, 1792, p. 192, § 50, and 25th January, 1798, p. 374, §§ 6 and 7 ; by the first of which it is enacted that no master of a vessel shall transport out of the Commonwealth any servant or slave without the consent or permission of the person to whom such servant or slave doth of right belong,” upon penalty of $150 for a servant, and $300 for a slave ; one moiety to the Commonwealth and the other to…

Dunlop & Co. brought their bill in equity against Hepburn & Dundas, to annul the agreement of the 27th September, 1799, and to compel an account, and to pay the balance. Hepburn & Dundas brought their bill against Colin Auld, agent of Dunlop & Co., for a specific performance of that agreement.

<p>An indictment will not lie against an inhabitant of the city of Washington for retailing spirituous liquors within the city.</p>

Assumpsit, against the indorser of James B. Roddy’s note. The notice given to the defendant was of the non-payment of a note signed John B. Roddy, &c., describing the note correctly as to every circumstance, except the signature John, instead of James.

<p>A free tom mulatto is a competent witness against a white person.</p>

Assumpsit, against the maker of a promissory note indorsed by Burford to Minifie, who indorsed it to Whetcroft in trust for the benefit of Minifie. Minifie, being indebted to Long, gave him an order on Burford to let Long have such goods as he should want. Burford accepted the order. Yiekers and others, credit* ors of Minifie, served an attachment on Burford, and on White, and on Whetcroft.

<p>la Alexandria, a prisoner indicted under the Act of Congress, for larceny, has the right of peremptory challenge.</p>

<p>The time of a slave’s sailing on a voyage from Alexandria, is not to he considered as a part of his year’s residence so as to entitle him to freedom, under the Virginia law of 17th December, 1792, § 2.</p>

<p>A slave does not acquire a right to freedom by being sent from Washington to Virginia for sale, and, not being sold, brought back after eight or nine months’ absence.</p>

’ Indictment for perjury, in the defendant’s affidavit to a bill in equity for an injunction against Peter Miller. offered to examine the defendant in equity, Peter Miller, as a witness, to prove the perjury. objected, that the question of injunction being still pending, the defendant in equity was not a competent witness to prove the perjury, and cited Rex. v. Dalby, Peake, N. P. 12; and Rex v. Menetone, 4 East, 576. ,

The defendant was indicted for treason against the United States, by adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, by supplying them with fruit and melons, showing them the channel of the River Potomac, and informing them of the situation of the troops of the United States. E. J. Lee, on the trial, objected to evidence of conversations held by the prisoner with the witness, before proof of some overt act.

Debt on bond. Plea non est factum, and issue. offered a deposition of the plaintiff’s son, to prove the handwriting of the obligor and subscribing witnesses, who resided in London, and were not proved to be dead. contended that this was not sufficient evidence of the execution of a bond. That it is only in commercial causes that the rule has been relaxed. The subscribing witnesses are supposed to be living, and a commission might issue to take their depositions.

<p>Quiere — whether a free colored man is a competent witness in a cause between white persons 1</p>

Assumpsit. Plea, alien enemy. Replication that the plaintiff, at the time of the impetration of the writ, was resident in the United States, with the license of the government. General rejoinder, and issue. said that the replication was according to a form in Story’s Pleadings, and cited Wells'v. Williams, 1 Ld. Raym. 282; 1 Salk. 46, S. C.; Sparenburg v. Bannatyne, 1 Bos. & Pul. 163, 165, and Clarke v. Johnson, 10 Johns. 59.

Indictment, for larceny, against a white man. offered, as a witness, a black man who had obtained his freedom by being removed from Virginia to Maryland, contrary to the Maryland law of 1796, c. 67. objected; and relied upon the 5th section of that statute, which declares that no slave “ who shall be manumitted or made free by virtue of that act,” “ shall be entitled ” “ to give evidence against any white person.”

<p>Parol evidence cannot be given of the contents of a letter from the notary public to the defendant, put into the post-office, without previous notice to the defendant to produce it.</p>

<p>Upon an indictment for selling a free person as a slave, under the Maryland law, 1796, c. 67, parol evidence may be given of the contents of papers delivered by the witness to the defendant, without a previous notice to produce them.</p>

Indictment for forging a promissory note of the Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank, (not incorporated.)' objected to the admission of the note in evidence, because it was. “ payable out of the joint funds thereof, and no other,”- and therefore not such a promissory note as was intended by the Act of Maryland, 1799, e. 75, 1, upon which the indictment was founded ; it not being, as they said, a negotiable promissory note; and they said it was not a bank-note within the meaning of the…

Assumpsit upon the defendant’s promissory note, made in Massachusetts, where all the parties resided. There was a count also for money had and received. The defendant pleaded, 1st. Non assumpsit. 2d and 3d. Non assumpsit, and actio non accrevit infra tres annos, under the Maryland act of limitations. 4th. Non assumpsit infra sex annos, under the act of limitations of Massachusetts.

<p>A slave convicted of manslaughter in Alexandria, D. C., may be punished by burning in the hand and wMpping.</p>

<p>This was an indictment for dealing with a slave without the consent of his master, contrary to the Act of Virginia of 17th December, 1792, § 16, p. 188.</p>

Assumpsit, upon a promise in writing to pay the debt of another if the latter did not pay in ninety days. The letter containing the promise was shown to the defendant, who admitted the letter to be his, but said the plaintiff ought to get the money from the third person,a nd that he would not pay unless compelled by law.

Bill in equity. The complainant held a note made by James Wilson, payable to John Tucker, chairman of a marine insurance association, and indorsed by him, by William Yeaton, and by the defendant, Marsteller, for $610.72 given by Wilson to the association to sécure the repayment of that sum in case he should not, within a certain time, produce satisfactory proof of his loss on the ship Governor Strong, for which loss he claimed indemnity under a policy of insurance, and on…

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Thomas W. Peyton, against Richard Veitch and Anthony Crease, joint merchants, trading under the firm of Richard Veitch & Co., Jonah Thompson and Craven P. Thompson, joint merchants, trading under the firm of Jonah Thompson & Son, and Jacob Hoffman, to recover the sum of $4,000 paid by the plaintiff to redeem the schooner Alert and cargo, which had been seized as forfeited, in Curacoa, for violation of the laws of that place, by…

This was a motion to the Court for a habeas corpus to bring up the slaves of Joseph Deane, who had been committed by the mayor of the town for the supposed violation of a by-law prohibiting the… Held: was at some distance north of the range of lots on Montgomery street.

John Wilson, a surety in the plaintiff’s administration bond, was offered as a witness for the plaintiff. objected that the witness was interested, because if the plaintiff failed to support the action, she would be liable for costs, and the witness, also, as her surety.

On the 18th of January, 1817, the following entry was made upon the minutes of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for the County of Washington. “ John Okely, a citizen and inhabitant of the District of Columbia, having been arrested for debt in Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, by a writ from the court of Philadelphia county, Jesse Sharpless, a citizen of Pennsylvania, at the request of the said Okely, became his bail.

Rule to show cause why an information should not be filed upon the presentment of the grand jury for playing at vingt un at a tavern, contrary to the Act of Assembly.

This was a bill for an injunction to stay execution upon a judgment at law recovered in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, by Hopkins against Fairfax. Upon the motion to dissolve the injunction, Cranch, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, May 17th, 1817.

This was a special action of assumpsit, for not delivering corn according to a written contract between Greenlow and Raymond.

Assumpsit, for money had and received. The plaintiff offered in evidence, a check drawn by the defendant upon the Union Bank, payable to B. Baden, or bearer, which, having been the property of the Merchants Bank, was delivered to the plaintiff by the cashier of that bank, for value received. offered evidence to prove, that the cashier of the Merchants Bank had no authority to deliver the check to the plaintiff, and that while it was the property of that bank, the defendant…

This was an action against the deputy-marshal of the District of Columbia, for levying a distress for a militia fine, imposed by a battalion court of inquiry, under the Acts of Congress of the 3d of March, 1803, and 1st of July, 1812, [2 Stat. at Large, 215, 769,] “more effectually to provide for the organization of the militia of the District of Columbia.”

Assumpsit, on the defendant’s promissory note, indorsed by Thompson Simpson, and George Bruce, Jun. The note when due, was taken up by the discount of notes of Bruce indorsed by Simpson, and afterwards returned by Bruce to the bank, who brought suit in the name of W. T. Swann, as indorsee.

This cause was, by consent, tried upon the presentment, which was in these words: — “ District of Columbia, Washington County Court, June term, 1817.

The defendant agreed to receive of the plaintiff $5000 of the notes of the Merchants Bank, (a private bank) if delivered in twenty days, and pay him for them $4,900, in good current notes of the district banks. Each was to forfeit $500 if he refused to comply; the agreement was to be reduced to writing, and signed the next day at the plaintiff’s counting-room. The defendant refused to sign it the next day, or to carry it into effect.

Assumpsit for professional services rendered by the plaintiff, who was an attorney and counsellor of this court. Besides his legal fees as attorney amounting to $70, the plaintiff proved an express promise by the defendant to pay the plaintiff $100 if the defendant should obtain a new trial in the case of Stull and others against him, which iVas obtained. contended that the plaintiff could not recover, in an action at law, his fees either as attorney or counsel.

This was a petition for freedom. John Thompson by his will dated December 31st, 1804, devised, that if his wife should not have a child within nine months after his death, the petitioner, his slave, should be free after ten years service.

Indebitatus assumpsit, for the hire of a slave, • At the trial, it was contended on the part of the defendant, that the slave had forfeited his wages by his misconduct at Lisbon, and by absenting himself. The jury found a special verdict, which was submitted to the Court without argument.

Assumpsit against an indorser of Robert Bayley’s note. H. 'Whetcroft, the notary-public, demanded payment of Bayley on the day after the third day of grace.

Indictment at common law for stealing a “ mulatto boy, named William Foote, of. the price of 500 dollars, of the goods and chattels of one Fanny Thomas.” moved the Court' to quash the indictment, and contended that it was no offence at common law to steal a slave, because slavery was not known at common law.

<p>' This was an action upon the case for the value of a slave of the plaintiff, carried away as a seaman by the defendant, and lost.</p>

The defendant was brought in. by the marshal at the suit of the United States, upon a ca. sa. for debt; and applied for the benefit of the prison bounds, and tendered a bond with sufficient sureties.

The prisoner was indicted for the murder of his wife by shooting her with a musket upon her return home in the evening from church. prayed the Court to instruct the jury that if they should be satisfied, by the evidence,- that the prisoner, from long and settled habits of intemperance, had become disordered, both in body and mind, and subject to fits which affected both his mind and body, and that, by reason thereof, he was generally, and at all times, when not under the…

The defendant pleaded, that at the time of signing the bond he was a slave, and so non est factum, and concluded to the country. Special demurrer, because he did not conclude with a verification. cited Wlmlpdalé s case, 5 Co. 119; 1 Chitty on Pleading, 537; Bushell v. Pasmore, 6 Mod. 218 ; and Story, 189. submitted the question without argument.

Action by the payee against James and Robert Patton, as drawers of a foreign bill of exchange, drawn in the name of James alone, and protested for non-payment. Robert, offered to examine the defendant James as a witness for Robert, upon the issue joined for him, judgment having been rendered against James by default, and the same jury having been sworn to assess the damages as to James at the same time. The general rule is, that a party cannot be a witness.

Indictment for counterfeiting a note of the Mechanics Bank of Alexandria. contended that the statutes of December 19, 1792, and December 8, 1794, do not punish the altering of a note ; that altering is not forging, or counterfeiting, or making. The note had been originally a note of the Merchants Bank, which had failed, and was altered so as to purport to be a note of the Mechanics Bank, which was in good credit.

<p>A slave does not acquire freedom by an importation and continuance a year in Alexandria, unless he continue there one year under the same master or owner.</p>

This was a chancery attachment, to recover the amount of a judgment at law obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant in .the year 1805, for $901.83, with interest from the 26th of May, 1804 and costs. The present suit was commenced on the 20th of November, 1816. The defendant, Henderson, was discharged under the insolvent act in 1806. The bill states that he had since acquired property sufficient to pay the debt, which was in the hands of the defendant, Sanderson. .

Assumpsit for $3000, money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff’s use, being the proceeds of the sale of the stock of books and stationery of Mr. Richards, a bookseller in Georgetown, under a mortgage made.by him to the defendant, dated 3d of May, 1817, and upon which the plaintiff claimed to haye a prior mortgage, dated 1st of February, 1817.

Assumpsit upon a note given for the purchase of a ticket in a ■ lottery, the prizes in which consisted of lands and lots.

The treasurer of Washington county, by his petition, prayed the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the city of Washington to pay over to the Treasurer of the county of Washington, one half of the expense of rebuilding a bridge over Rock Creek.

This was an application, made to this Court, on behalf of the Levy Court of the county of Washington, stating that a difference of opinion existed between the corporation of Washington and the Levy Court upon the question whether certain items charged by the Levy Court, in their account against the corporation of Washington, were, or might be properly called general expenses, and applicable to the whole county, and praying this Court, under the authority of the Act of…

This was an action of replevin against the marshal of the District of Columbia, to replevy the plaintiff’s goods taken in execution upon two writs of fieri facias issued by the clerk of this Court on the 19th of June, 1816, (No. 7 and 8 on the judicial docket of December term, 1816,) one for $1,000, and the other for $900, upon the order of the President of the Bank of Columbia, in virtue of the authority vested in him by the 14th section of the Act of Maryland, of 1793, c.…

Indictment for assault and battery on one Murray, a constable.

This was a special action upon the case, brought by the plaintiffs as assignees of Gerrard Plummer, survivor of the firm of Jerome & Gerrard Plummer, against the defendant as President of the Union Bank of Alexandria, for not transferring to the plaintiffs 600 shares of the stock of that bank, which J. & G. Plummer had assigned to him in trust to secure payment of 2000 dollars loaned to them by the bank, the plaintiffs having tendered that sum in full to the defendant as…

These suits were brought to charge the defendant Yerby, as a secret partner with the defendant Woodward. •The deposition of Anthony Elton, taken by the mayor of Philadelphia, under the 30th section of the judiciary act of 1789, [1 Stat. at Large, 73,] was offered in evidence on the part of the plaintiff. objected to it, because the mayor had not certified that the deponent was “ carefully examined, and cautioned, and sworn or affirmed to testify the whole truth.” The mayor…

This was an action upon the case against the corporation of Georgetown, by its corporate name, to recover damages for injury done to the plaintiff’s house and lot by raising the level of the street after the plaintiff had built a house, accommodated to a previous level fixed by a by-law of the corporation.

<p>In taking ex parte depositions under tke Act of Congress, the requisites of the act must be strictly pursued.</p>

Indictment for stealing two horses of Coote and Hunter, respectively. contended that it was a capital offence, and punishable with death, or labor upon the roads, under the laws of Maryland, 1793, c. 57, § 10, and 1799, e. 61, 1 and 3, and therefore the Court, without deciding that point, allowed the prisoner the right of peremptory challenge.

<p>cited Cadwell v. Jackson, 7 Cranch, 276, and 13 Viner, 253.</p>

There were several writs of attachment at law. Violette’s was the first which came to the hands of the marshal. English brought his afterwards, and broke into the house and showed the goods to the marshal, who attached them on Violette’s writ as well as English’s, and so returned them. claimed the priority, because he had first shown the goods. The law is not the same as upon an execution which binds the goods from the delivery of the writ to the marshal.

Assumpsit, upon a promissory note, and the common money counts. offers to prove the handwriting of the defendants, the makers of the note, by other testimony than that of the subscribing witness, without accounting for his absence.

The defendant, who was a constable, was presented for wantonly sacrificing a carpet taken by him in execution, and sold at a time and place different from the time and place mentioned in the notice of sale.

Assumpsit, on a promissory note, given in consideration of the assignment of the time of an apprentice. contended that the assignment, being unlawful, was not a sufficient consideration to support the action upon the note.' contended, that although the assignment was void, yet the defendant had enjoyed the services of the apprentice, and was bound in conscience to pay the note.

<p>Debt on bond conditioned to transfer stock of the "Washington Bridge Company.</p>

The defendant’s affidavit, did not aver that he verily believed that the cause could not be tried with safely to himself, without the attendance of the absent witness. objected to the continuance, upon the ground that the affidavit was imperfect by reason of the omission of that averment. contended that that averment is only matter of form, and that it is to be inferred from the facts stated. stated that it was by his inadvertence that the averment was omitted.

Assumpsit, against the acceptor of a bil drawn by John Wells, Jr. upon the defendant, and by him accepted payable to James Hodnett, or order, on the 29th of March, 1819, and indorsed by him and A. Mclntire, for $350. The bill, having seventy-five days to run, was put into the hands of Mr. Nicholls, a broker, to raise money upon it for tfie use of the drawer.

This was a special aetioii upon the case, on a written contract executed by the defendant G. A. Smoot, as principal, and the other defendant as surety, to deliver fifty cords of wood to the plaintiff, Jones.

Assumpsit, against the maker of a nóte. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. Upon the trial the plaintiff proved that within three years, the defendant promised to pay when he'should be able. contended that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is or has been, since the promise, able to pay.

This was an issue from chancery, to try the complainant’s title to a map of the city of Washington. offered to read the bill and answer in evidence to the jury; and stated/that in the case of Peter’s will, the libel and answer in the Orphans’ Court had been read in evidence. objected that the bill and answer cannot be read in evidence, unless it be so ordered by the Court of Chancery at the time of ordering the issue. contended that the omission of the plaintiff to cause the…

<p>A deed of land in Maryland, acknowledged by tbe grantor, before two justices of the peace of the county in Maryland in which the grantor then resided, not being the county in which the land laid, is not properly recorded under the act of 1766, c. 14, unless there were indorsed on the deed a certificate of the clerk of the county under the seal of the Court that the two justices were, at the time, justices of the peace of that county, and such certificate recorded with the deed.</p> <p>A receipt, at the bottom of a collector’s certificate of a tax-sale, to which certificate there is a subscribing witness, may be given in evidence, without proving the certificate of sale by the subscribing witness.</p> <p>The receipts of the collector are not evidence upon proof of his handwriting if he be within the jurisdiction of the Court, and not a party in the cause.</p>

A negro boy, about eight years old, was brought into Court by • habeas corpus, in the custody of Edward Diggs. It appeared that he had been brought into the city of Washington from Maryland, where he had been bound to Diggs to be taught the business of a farmer. Diggs hired him here to a chimney-sweeper.

A ship, the property of The Savannah Steam Ship Company, incorporated under an Act of the Legislature of Georgia, ivas attached under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, for a debt due to the plaintiff. A writ of capias ad respondendum was issued at the same time, commanding the marshal to take The Savannah Steam Ship Company.

Tins was an indictment under the 18th section of the Act of the 30th of April, 1810, [2 Stat. at Large, ■ 597,] “ regulating the post-office establishment.” It consisted of a single count, and charged that Richard Golding on the 10th of July, 1819, “ was employed in one of the departments of the general post-office, té wit, at the post-office established at Washington City in the county of Washington, as a messenger and sorter of letters, and in virtue of his said…

This was an action upon a policy of insurance, to recover for damage exceeding five per cent, on 6000 dollars insured on the ship Thomas. By the terms of the policy, the underwriters were not liable for any loss or damage under five per cent, upon the amount insured.

AssuMpsit, for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use. The plaintiff, being in possession ,of some slaves, empowered the defendant to sell them for him and to pay him the proceeds of the sale. The defendant sold them and received the money, but refused to pay it to the plaintiff, because he alleged that the slaves were the property of one Manly Reardon, who died intestate, and that the title was in his administrator.

Trespass, that the defendant on the — day of June, 1819, at the county aforesaid, with force and arms, that is to say with a gun loaded with powder and lead, did break and enter the close of the plaintiff, and did then and there shoot into the garden of the plaintiff, and did then and there kill the dog of the plaintiff of the value of one hundred dollars and other wrongs did, &c.; damage, $500.

This was a motion by Mr. Taylor, Attorney for the Common Council of Alexandria, for judgment against Joseph Mandeville, for his proportion of the expense of paving Pitt street, between Cameron and Queen streets, the recovery of which, by motion, is authorized by the amended charter of the 25th of February, 1804, § 11, [2 Stat. at Large, 255.] By the by-law of the 7th of September, 1802, the proprietor of a lot is liable to a tax of $1.32, on every front foot of his lot on a…

after issue joined, and the jury was about to be sworn, moved the Court to quash the writ of replevin, because the clerk had taken the bond with one surety only.

This was an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, money had and received, &c. The writ was against “ George G. Barrell, late of the county aforesaid, merchant, lately carrying on trade and commerce, as a merchant, under the firm of Kirkpatrick, Grivegneé & Co.” The declaration stated, that “ William Kirkpatrick, Henry Grivegneé, Jr. and George G. Barrell, lately trading under the firm of Kirkpatrick, Grivegneé & Co., were attached to answer to Charles Edmondston…

The capias issued in trespass on the case. The declaration was in trespass vi ei armis for breaking the plaintiff’s lamp. The defendant demurred generally to the declaration, without praying oyer of the writ.

<p>If the name of one of the defendants be omitted in the caption of a deposition, it cannot be read in evidence in the cause.</p> <p>It is not necessary that the magistrate who takes a deposition under the Act of Congress, should certify that the opposite party had no attorney within one hundred miles of the place of caption, in order to excuse the want of notice.</p> <p>If the defendant call upon the plaintiff to produce a certain account at the trial, and, when produced,refuses toread it,in evidence, the plaintiff cannot.read it to the jury, in evidence, because called for by the defendant.</p>

<p>Assumpsit, against the drawer of a check on the Bank of Columbia.</p> <p>The defendant lent his check for $>300, on the Bank of Columbia, to Fitzhugh, payable to him or bearer, but had no funds in that bank. Fitzhugh delivered it to the plaintiff, and promised to take it up in ten days ; and the plaintiff engaged not to present it to the bank, nor to call on the defendant until the expiration of that period.</p>

Debt upon the award of an umpire. objected at the trial, that the umpire had given no notice to the defendant, or to the arbitrators of the time and place of his proceeding to act upon the matter submitted.

Indictment at common law for enticing away a slave belonging to Judge Washington. Verdict, guilty, and the jury assessed the fine at $50.

Indictment for fighting a duel with one R. Smith. Doctor John A. Kearney, a witness for the United States, was asked whether he saw the defendant shoot at Smith.

Indictment for stealing sundry copper bolts, the property of the United States. The prisoner was a workman in the navy yard and employed in driving such bolts. The bolts were delivered to him from the shop where they were cut. He offered to sell them, having first carried them home to his house. contended that it was not larceny, unless the defendant took them with intent to steal them. No trespass was committed.

Ti-ie plea of limitations was filed in this cause after the rule-day, and the issue was made up by the clerk. moved the Court to order the plea to be stricken out, because not filed before the expiration of the rule to plead ; and cited the case of Thompson v. Afflick, in this Court at June term, 1812, (ante, 46,) in which the Court decided that they would not receive the plea after the rule-day, unless upon affidavit showing that it is necessary for the justice of the case.…

The plaintiff offered in evidence, a deposition, taken under the Act of Congress, and the magistrate certified that notice was not given to the defendant'Piatt, because he was not within 100 miles of the place of caption. objected that as the writ was issued against Piatt and two others, and the title of the suit in the deposition was Brown v. Piatt and two others, and as the two others were within 100 • miles, they ought to have been notified although they had not been…

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace of the county of Washington for the penalty of five dollars under the 7th section of the by-law of the corporation of Washington, passed on the 14th of April, 1821, c. 133, entitled “ An act to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which free negroes and mulattoes may reside in the city of Washington, and for other purposes.” The first section requires the city commissioners to give notice to all free persons…

Replevin. Avowry for rent arrear. Upon the plaintiff’s affidavit for the continuance of the cause to the next term, on account of the absence of a witness who, he stated, would testify that the plaintiff did not get full possession of the house until some time after the rent was to commence.

This was an attachment, under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, levied upon the lands of an absent debtor.

Debt on bail-bond. Pleas — 1st. A release. 2d. That John Renner came during the term and offered to appear, but the plaintiffs, Lindsay & Hill, had struck off their suit. 3d. That the defendant, John Renner, appeared at the day, &c. contended that this Court had decided, in the ease of Rhodes v. Brooke, at December term, 1804, (1 Cranch, C. C. 206,) that the defendant had a right to appear at any time during the first term, although the plaintiff should have taken an…

Assumpsit, against R. S. • Blacklock, surviving partner of the firm of N. & R. S. Blacklock, who were' indorsers of William F. Thornton’s note, due 25th August, 1818.

On the 12th ,of December, 1821, John Wheelwright and five others, filed their petition, supported by the affidavit of Wheelwright, praying for a rule on the judges of the election of directors of the Columbian Insurance Company of Alexandria, to show cause why a' mandamus should not issue commanding the said judges of election to return the petitioners as duly elected directors of the said company, and also for a rule upon the said company to admit the petitioners as…

This was a bill in equity, praying for an injunction to stay the proceedings at law upon judgments rendered upon two promissory notes given for part of the purchase-money of the Glebe, belonging to the parish of Fairfax, which had been purchased by the complainant and Mr. Jones, at the sale made under the decree of this Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Taylor et al. v. Terrett et al. (9 Crunch, 43,) and praying, also, that the sale…

This was a bill in equity by Elisha Talbot against John McPherson and Daniel McPherson, carrying on the trade of tanning, under the firm of John McPherson & Son, and one Tuley, the foreman of John McPherson & Son.

Bill in equity by Samuel Harper against Daniel Dougherty, John McPherson, Daniel McPherson, John McPherson, Jr., Thomas Tuley, and Nathaniel S. Wise.

<p>Assumpsit, on a promissory note for five hundred dollars.</p>

<p>-It is not competent for the plaintiff to give evidence of the defendant’s acknowledgment of the receipt of the goods mentioned in a certain account which had been delivered to the defendant, without haying first given notice to the defendant to produce the account.</p>

Debt against the surety in an auctioneer’s bond, taken under a by-law of Georgetown, for licensing auctioneers, which requires them to give bond to the mayor, and directs that the licenses shall be granted under the seal of the corporation. In this ease, the bond was given to the corporation by its corporate name, and the license was without a seal.

Trespass quare clausum fregit. The defendant, who was a constable, justified under a warrant from a justice of the peace to search for goods clandestinely removed by Sears, tenant of Johns-tqn, within thirty days after the expiration of the term, under the Stat. of 11 Geo. 2, c. 19. cited Bradby on Distresses, 14, 15.

Debt on a collector’s bond. There were several breaches assigned in not paying over the money collected. The bond was dated in June, 1816, and the defendant resigned his office in October, 1816, before the tax list of that year had been delivered to him. He had been collector for several preceding years. contended that as the defendant had been collector in preceding years, his sureties in this bond are liable for collections made in former years.

Indictment for forging and uttering the following order: “Sir, — Please let the bearer have one pair boots, Yours &c., Levin Stewart. Mr. Lang, Geo’town, December 31, 1821,” with intent to defraud one William Lang.

<p>Petition for freedom.</p>

The indictment in this case charged that the defendant at the county of Washington in the District of Columbia, with intent to defraud the United States, feloniously uttered and published as true, and caused to be uttered and published as true, certain forged papers and documents respecting a pension, against the peace and government of the United States.

Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorser of a lost inland bill of exchange. The declaration had three counts. The first was the common count upon the non-acceptance of the bill, without saying anything of its loss.

Assumpsit against the indorser of J. Carlon’s note for $223 at thirty days, dated December 13th, 1819. Payment was demanded in Georgetown, by the notary public on Saturday, the 15th of January, 1820, between three and four o’clock, in the afternoon, that being the last day of grace. The mail from Georgetown to Washington closed at nine o’clock of the same evening ; the next following mails closed on Sunday and Monday evening at the same hour.

Debt upon a replevin bond. The bond was in this form: “ Know all men, by these presents, that we, Richard M. Scott, trustee of Mrs. Elizabeth C. Watson, and Henry Forrest, James Watson, and J. G. Slye, of Washington county and District of Columbia, are held and firmly bound unto Bazil Wood and Henry B. Robertson,” &c. — but was éxeeuted by the last-named three obligors only, Mr. Scott not having signed or sealed it.

This was an action brought to recover the purchase-money of about four and a half acres of land, being Lot No. 299, in Beatty & Hawkins’s addition to Georgetown, amounting to $587.01. Upon a demurrer to the evidence the principal question was, whether the auctioneer’s written memorandum of the sale was sufficient to take the case out of the Statute of Frauds.

The defendant was indicted for sending a challenge to James McGuire to fight a duel.

upon applying to Morsell, J., for a citation upon a writ of error in this cause, offered a bond with surety in the penalty of . The judge, doubting whether it ought not to be in double the amount of the judgment recovered in this court, submitted the question to the Court.

Trespass quare clausum fregit. The close was called Spring Garden, the greater part of which was in Virginia, and the remainder in the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia. The entry upon the District part, was with intent .to do an injury in the Virginia part; and without such intent, the entry would not have been a,trespass.’

Assumpsit against the indorser of Robert Munro’s promissory note due at Georgetown, D. C., on the 3d-6th of the month. It was protested on the 7th, and notice sent to the Farmers’ Bank of Alexandria on the same day.

Assumpsit by the indorsee against the indorser of W. Dulany’s bill, on Mrs. Eliza Dulany, in favor of the defendant, in these words: — “ Alexandria, 14th August, 1820. “ $252.71. Four months after date, please to pay to the order of Jesse Brown, $252.71, and charge the same to your obedient servant, as per value received. Witness my hand and seal. W. Dulany. [l. s.] To Mrs. Eliza Dulany, Alexandria.

Assumpsit, against the indorser of Peter Sanders’s note, indorsed by the defendant in blank after it had been protested. offered parol evidence to show that at the time of indorsement it was agreed that the defendant should not be liable unless the maker should prove to be insolvent. Between immediate parties the defendant may give evidence to contradict the words, “for value received;” dfortiori to explain an equivocal indorsement.

Trespass vi et armis, for taking away the plaintiff’s son and servant per quod servitium amisit. Demurrer to the evidence. contended that the action should have been trespass on the case ■— not vi et armis ; but that if trespass vi et armis will lie, the plaintiff must prove either actual force, or that he seduced the boy knowingly, that is, knowing the plaintiff’s right to his service. But the evidence shows that he did not know it. 2 Chitty on Pleading, 237, 238.

This was an attachment issued By Cranch, C. J., out of court, and in vacation, against the lands and tenements in the county of Alexandria, of the defendant, under the Act of Maryland of 1795, c. 69, and the Act of Congress of the 24th of June, 1812, 4, [2 Stat. at Large, 755.] , stated that if the Court should be of opinion that the process would lie, the defendant would give bail and set aside the attachment.

This was an action of slander, for words spoken of the plaintiff. -The declaration contained four counts. 1. Held: &c., in a certain conversation which the defendant had with the said John Eveleth, of and concerning the plaintiff as a person concerned in the said boat, and as a stockholder therein, and of and concerning the plaintiff’s interest therein, &e., and of and concerning the plaintiff’s circumstances and character, spoke, in the hearing…

Assumpsit, against the indorser of a promissory note. The defendant after the suit was brought, told a stranger (Z. W.) that he was ready and willing to pay the debt if he knew the amount of the costs. contended that the promise to pay, is prima facie evidence of due demand and notice, and of the defendant’s indorsement; the note having been filed in the clerk’s office before the acknowledgment, although there was no evidence that the defendant had seen the note.

<p>It is no valid objection to a deposition taken nnder the Act of Congress, that its envelope is not directed to “ the Court,” if it be directed to “ the judges ” of the Court.</p> <p>It is sufficient evidence that the deposition was “sealed up” by the magistrate, if the envelope is sealed, and the name of the magistrate written across the seal.</p> <p>It is not competent for the plaintiff to give parol evidence that the defendant saw and acknowledged the balance stated in the plaintiff’s ledger, without producing the ledger itself; a copy of the account is not competent evidence.</p>

Replevin. Rent arrear, and issue. The plaintiff, having given notice to the defendant to produce the original, offered to read in evidence to the jury, a copy of a paper in the handwriting of the deceased subscribing witness. objected ; stating that his client had not the original.

<p>A woman who keeps prostitutes for gain, cannot recover in an action against them for boarding and lodging.</p>

Debt upon the official bond of John Hall, a regimental paymaster. The defendant and one David Ott, were his sureties.

Indebitatus assumpsit, for the balance of an account for coal sold and delivered. At the foot of the account there was an order on Tennison to pay the balance ($76,) to John O. Lay, of Richmond.

objected that there had been no order of the Court to produce them ; nor any motion to the Court for such an order. contended that he was yet in time to make the motion for an order to produce the books: and that notice of the motion was not necessary as there had been a notice served on the plaintiff to produce them at the last term; he accordingly now made the motion ; but it being the last time of calling the docket, and the cause being called for trial, the Court…

<p>This was a petition for freedom, founded upon an importation from Maryland to Yirginia in the year 1792.</p> <p>When the jury was about to be sworn, Mr. Jones, for the defendant, stated that it had been an old practice in this Court, in suits for freedom, to ask each juror, before he was sworn, the following questions:</p> <p>1. Have you any conscientious scruple which disinclines you to find a verdict against the petitioners for freedom, and inclines you to find a verdict in their favor, even when the law and evidence, upon strict legal principles, are against them ?</p> <p>2. Do you consider yourself.in conscience, and upon principle, bound to find a verdict in favor of the petitioner, if the evidence be doubtful ?</p> <p>No objection to these questions was made by the petitioner’s counsel, and the Court did not, at the moment, object to them. The questions were put, and some of the jurors stated that they did not feel indifferent in such cases, and were set aside.</p> <p>But the Court, (Thruston, J., not giving any opinion,) having referred to the cases of Reason v. Bridges, in this Court at December term, 1807, (1 Craneh, C. C. 477,) and Negro Clem Joice v. Alexander, at December term, 1808, (1 Craneh, C. C. 528,) and Davis v. Wood, at December term, 1813, (not reported,) said, that this case must not be drawn into precedent, as the Court did not mean to sanction such a practice; believing that the rights of the parties are sufficiently protected by the right of peremptory challenge given by the statute, and by the common-law right to challenge for cause. That the Court was not aware of any precedent for such a practice, and was not inclined now to adopt it.</p> <p>Upon the trial, the facts, as stated in the bill of exceptions, appeared to be, that before December, 1792, James Craik removed into the county of Fairfax in Virginia, with intent to settle therein, and to become a citizen of Virginia, and did so settle and become a citizen of Virginia, and continued to reside therein till his death in 1814. That at the time of his removal he brought the petitioner, she then being his slave, with him into Virginia, and there held her and her children as his slaves until his death, when he bequeathed them to his widow, who in 1814 removed from Fairfax county into the county of Alexandria in this district, with her said slaves, and continued there to hold them as her slaves until her death in 1815, when she bequeathed them to the wives of the defendants Mason and Moore, who were then inhabitants of the District of Columbia.</p> <p>•That all the magistrates who were in commission in the county of Fairfax in the year 1792 were dead before the year 1818.</p> <p>Upon which state of facts the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Turner añd Mr. Taney, prayed the Court to instruct the jury, “ that if the defendant wishes to avail himself of the proviso in the 5th section of the Act of 1785, c. 77, it is incumbent on him to produce competent testimony to prove that the said James Craik had complied with the terms and conditions of the said proviso; and that, in the absence of all testimony, no presumption can arise from lapse of time or other facts in the case agreed, to supply the defects of such testimony.”</p> <p>This case is not subject to the ordinary rules of evidence. Mima Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Craneh, 298, Mr. Justice Duvall’s opinion. No lapse of time can bar a claim for freedom. Even in ordinary cases lapse of timé must be attended by corroborating circumstances. Butler v. Craig, 2 Har. & M’Henry, 226; 1 Philips, 110. The burden of proof, that he had complied with the conditions of the proviso, rests on the master. Garnet v. Sam and Phillis, 5 Hen. & Mun. 542, 546 ; Negro Rose v. Kennedy, in this Court, July term, 1801, (1 Craneh, C. C. 29,) Negro Jack Gar-retson v. Lingan, in this Court, at April term, 1821, \ante, 236,] where this Court decided that no such presumption can arise from lapse of time against a slave who is incapable of asserting his right.</p> <p>contended that a presumption that the oath was duly taken, arises from the lapse of thirty years since the petitioner was brought from Maryland into Virginia, and the long continued possession of the slaves by the defendants and their ancestors, without any question having been suggested as to that fact, and the death of all the magistrates of the county who could have administered the oath, of which no record, or even certificate, was required by .the law. The 5th section of the act of 1785, c. 77, is a proviso that nothing in the act contained “shall be construed to extend to those who may incline to move from any of the United States, and become citizens of this, if, within sixty days after such removal he or she shall take the following oath before some justice of the peace of this Commonwealth.”</p> <p>The law does not require even that the oath shall be reduced to writing, and even if it were, and certified, the certificate would not be evidence, unless made so by the statute. If nothing but direct and positive testimony to the fact is sufficient evidence, and all the witnesses are dead, and the lapse of time raises no presumption, and the burden of proof is on the master, there is no security whatever for property of this description.</p> <p>The law is highly penal, and every man is presumed to be innocent till the contrary is proved. The presumption is in favor of duty; the negative must be proved. 1 Phil, on Ev. 150, *§> 4.</p>

Assumpsit by the indorsee of the defendant’s promissory note to Barnett and Cammann for $1,000, dated November 16, 1818, payable on the 1st of June, 1819, “ without defalcation.” Under the signature of the defendant, the word and létters, “ Washington, P. C.” were written apparently by another person.

Assumpsit upon the joint and several note of the defendant and two others, with a memorandum to credit the first drawer, who was Vincent King. The defence was usury in taking sixty-four days’ discount upon a sixty-day note.

A fieri facias against the rights and credits only of the defendant, was issued from the office of the clerk of this court, by order of the justice of the peace who rendered the judgment, and was returnable to the same office on the 1st Monday of October, 1822.

A writ of mandamus nisi, was obtained by Mr. Roger C. Weightman, one of the candidates for the office of mayor of Washington at the late election, held on the first Monday in June, 1822, against Mr. Thomas Carbery, who had been returned as duly elected; and against the commissioners of election; commanding the said Thomas Carbery immediately to cease and forbear to hold, claim, or execute, the place, or office of mayor, and to admit the said Roger C. Weightman into the said…

The plaintiffs (the Bank of the Metropolis) obtained a verdict against the defendant at October term, 1821, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a case stated. Before any argument upon the points reserved the cause was continued to April term, 1822, and argued on the 2d of May, and also on a subsequent day. The Couet, on the 7th of June, 1822, rendered judgment for the plaintiff upon the case stated.

Upon the application of Henry Hadry to Cranch, C. J., for a discharge under the act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia, he appointed the 2d Monday of November, for that purpose, when the Court was in session. Mr. A. C. Cazenove, one of his creditors, filed allegations of fraud, and petitioned the Court for a jury, which was ordered accordingly.

An agreement in writing, respecting the advance of bills on London to the amount of ¿64,000 sterling, and the consignment of a cargo of flour to John Traverse, one of the plaintiffs, in Lisbon, was made between the defendants and the said Traverse.

Debt for $60,000, the penalty of the defendant’s bond to the United States, conditioned to perform the covenants of an agreement between him and the acting Secretary of War, dated November 5, 1817, for the supply of rations to the troops of the United States in certain places; by the 5th article of which, the commanding general or person appointed by him, at each post or place, in case of absolute failure or deficiency in the quantity of provisions contracted to be delivered…

The plaintiff.claimed property in a horse, which the defendant, as deputy marshal, had taken as the property of one E. P. Taylor, upon a fieri facias at the suit of A. B. The horse had been sold by Taylor to the plaintiff, Maul, on the 10th of January, the horse then being in the possession of one Edward Stone, as bailee of Taylor, who on that day gave a written order to Stone to deliver the horse to Maul.

Assumpsit, against the indorser of W. S. Itadcliff’s note, dated October, 9th, 1816, for $120, payable thirty days after date to the defendant or order. Long after the expiration of the thirty days, namely, on the 3d of January, 1818, this note was indorsed by the defendant to one Joshua Tennison or order, who indorsed it to the plaintiff’s intestate.

Assumpsit by the payee against the maker of a promissory note for $1,300 payable twelve months after date.

<p>Upon motion of the special bail, at the return of the scire facias, the Court will set aside the original judgment against the principal, for irregularity, and will quash the scire facias against the bail.</p>

Theee were three indictments against the defendant for forgery. In one he was charged with forging a certificate purporting to be signed by one Henry Naylor, with intent to defraud one Hol-mead. objected to Naylor and Holmead as witnesses for the prosecution. objected to Digges as a witness, but the objection was overruled by the Court.

This was a petition for freedom. offered to demur to the plaintiff’s evidence. refused to join in the demurrer, unless the defendant would admit that the petitioner ivas imported by one Peyton “ for sale; ” and contended that upon a demurrer to evidence the party demurring must admit all the facts which the evidence conduces to prove; and cited Tidd, 854 ; Phil, on Ev. 216; and the case of Patty v. Edelin, in this Court at January term, 1802, (1 Cranch, C. C. 60.) The Court…

Bill in equity, in the nature of a petition of right, filed under the authority given by the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th sections of the Act of Congress of the 7th of May, 1822, c. 96, [3 Stat. at Large, 691,] entitled “ an act to authorize and empower the Corporation of the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia, to drain the low grounds on and near the public reservations, and to improve and ornament certain parts of such reservations.” By the 6th section it is…

<p>This Court has authority to suspend an attorney of the Court from practice for a limited time, or to expel him entirely; and may, for that purpose, inquire, in a summary manner, as to any charges of malpractice alleged against him.</p>

Assumpsit for not performing an award, and for use and occupation of a brick-yard, with the common money counts.

Petition for freedom. Upon the trial, the petitioner’s counsel took a bill of exceptions, which stated that he offered evidence to prove that the petitioner was residing in the city of Washington previous to Christmas, 1821, and continued so to reside till the end of the year 1822. That the defendant was a citizen and resident of Virginia, and knew that the petitioner was so residing in Washington, and made no objection to his so residing.

Indictment for stealing a box of books. Mr. Handy was offered as a witness for the United States. for the prisoner, objected that he was interested, as he had given a receipt for the books to B. French, stating them to be so many, more or less, to be delivered. to sundry persons.

Indictment, for assault and battery on Leonard Adams, a constable, who came to the assistance of R. Stevens, a constable, to take the defendant upon a warrant from N. S. Wise, a justice of the peace for this county, upon a charge upon the oath of Samuel Thompson, of having violently beaten negro Griffin, the slave of Jonah Thompson.

This was an indictment of a slave for an assault and battery upon Henry Shortle, a white man. The jury found him guilty, and assessed the fine at $23.

TheRE were six chancery attachments, served at different times, in behalf of several creditors. The question was whether all the attaching creditors shall come in pari passu, or whether the attachment first served shall have the preference. The case was at November term, 1821. The bills do not aver that Love is insolvent. These attachments are all under the statute; and not under the general principles of equity. They do not affect the whole of the debtors’ property.

John Connelly applied to the Hon. J. S. Morsell, one of the judges of this Court, on the22d of November, 1823, for the benefit of the Insolvent Act of the 3d of March, 1803, [2 Stat. at Large, 237,] and the usual notice was given for the creditors to attend on the first Monday of December, when Michael Murray, one of the creditors of the insolvent, filed allegations under the 7lh section of the act, charging, 1. “ That the said Connelly was refused heretofore, namely, on the…

Assumpsit, for money let, &c. objected to the deposition of E- W. Duvall, taken on the part of the defendant, before Thomas Carberry, Esq., mayor of Washington, in the presence of the plaintiff. 1. Because the notice to plaintiff to attend at the time and place of caption, did not require him “ to put interrogatories if he should think fit.” 2.

This was an action to recover money overpaid by the plaintiffs’ intestate, who was clerk of the House of Representatives of the United States, to the defendant’s intestate, who was one of the officers of the House. The plaintiffs offered to examine Benjamin Burch as a witness.

<p>Assumpsit against the maker of two promissory notes, payable to the plaintiff’s intestate, James M. Varnurn, amounting to $440.</p>

Assumpsit upon a blacksmith’s bill of work done for the defendant’s plantation, from September, 1816, to August, 1822, amounting to $1,349.56. contended that as the witness had no distinct recollection of the particular items independent of the entries in his handwriting in the day-book, his testimony was not competent evidence to the jury.

This was an attachment under the Act of Maryland of 1795, c. 56. Mr. Marbury moved the Court to quash the attachment, because the-affidavit made to obtain the attachment was made before a judge of the State of New York, and the notary-public who had certified the judge, had not certified that he had authority to administer the oath according to the second section of the Act of 1795.

Assumpsit, upon an open account, arid for moneys lent and advanced. having given notice, now moved the Court for an order on the defendant to produce his bank-book and surrendered vouchers, by a certain day before the trial. objected, that under the 15th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, [1 Stat. at Large, 73,] the party can only be compelled to produce books and papers in the trial, not before the trial. Geyger’s case, 2 Dali. 332.

Assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded the act of limitations. The plaintiffs’ witness testified, that he called on the defendant with the plaintiffs’ account for payment. The defendant said he did not like to pay money when money was due to him, and that he had an account against J. S. Nicholls, and would settle in that way, or words to that effect.

Mr. Key was allowed by the Court to appear for the defendant, and moved to quash the attachment, because it did not appear in the warrant of the magistrate ordering the attachment, nor any where else in the affidavit or proceedings that the plaintiff was a citizen of the District of Columbia, or of the United States, or of 'any State of the United States. contended that it was not necessary that it should appear in any of the preliminary proceedings, but that it wras…

<p>Upon a promissory note, dated at Georgetown, D. C., by which. T. C. and J. W. (not being in partnership, and one of them residing in Maryland,) jointly and severally promise to pay to L. G. D. or order, $600, eighteen months after date, it is necessary, in order to charge the indorser, that payment should have been, in due time, demanded of each of the makers of the note, although one of them resided in Maryland, out of the jurisdiction of this Court, when the note was given, and when it became payable.</p> <p>It is not necessary that payment of a promissory note should be demanded by a notary-public.</p> <p>The demand may be made by any other agent of the holder.</p>

This was an indictment charging the prisoner with murder by killing one Elijah Chenault, a constable, who came to the house occupied by the prisoner, to levy a distress for rent, under a written order from one Holbrook the landlord, in these words : — “ Alexandria, 31st July, 1823. Betsy Williams to Abiel Hol-brook, Dr. To rent, two months and fifteen days, $6.25.

This was an action by the assignee of a promissory note for $436.31, made by the defendants to Jonathan Janney, and due on the 25th of July, 1822, when it was protested. ■ Janney assigned it to the plaintiff on the 1st of August, 1822.

<p>The Court will reject a deposition, if the notice has not been reasonable.</p> <p>Notice given at noon to take a deposition between four and six o’clock of the same evening, is not reasonable, if there be no special circumstances to prevent an earlier notice.</p>

This was a policy of insurance upon the schooner Eleanor H. Semmes, Alexander Semmes, master, for six months from the 17th of May, 1821, “ now bound on a voyage from Georgetown to Madeira, and a market between Cape Finistérre and Naples, with liberty, after the expiration of six months, to freight or trade for six months more on a premium of five and a half per cent, on payment being made therefor.” The first six months expired, and the policy was renewed agreeably to the…

The note was for $56.84. The warrant was for $50. Caze-nove, at the trial, admitted payment of $6.84.

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, who tried the cause by a jury, under the late Act of Congress for enlarging the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in the District of Columbia, March 1, 1823. [3 Stat. at Large, 743.]

This indictment charged that the defendant, with force and arms, falsely and fraudulently, by means of false and fraudulent pre-tences, did obtain and take from the compting-house of oneN. B. Yanzandt, two books of account of the value of five dollars, of the goods and chattels of the said N. B. V. against the peace and government of the United States.

Assumpsit. 1. The first count stated that the plaintiff, at June term, 1820, had recovered judgment against one James D. Barry, in this Court, for $648.86, with interest from a certain day, and $ 15.34 costs, who was arrested upon a ca. sa. issued thereupon, and in custody of the marshal; in consideration whereof, and that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, would forbear to prosecute the said J. D. B. on that ca. sa. and would not trouble him, and would let him…

This was an action on the case for ¡$1615, being the amount due from the defendant for his subscription upon eighty-five shares of the capital stock.

<p>The Rockville and Washington Turnpike Company may maintain an action against a stockholder for the amount of his subscription, and are not obliged to resort to a sale of his shares.</p>

<p>If a promissory note be indorsed by the defendant without an intention of giving credit to the note, and without having received any value for it, and only to comply with the form required by the plaintiff in the course of his business as an auctioneer, and if it was so understood at the time by the plaintiff, who declared he so considered it, the plaintiff cannot recover.</p>

Nicholas Young petitioned the Court for a license to keep a ferry over the eastern branch of the Potomac, alongside of the eastern branch bridge, and a rule was granted to the Avacostia Bridge Company, and the Navy Yard Bridge Company, and the Eastern Branch Bridge Company to show cause why it should not be granted. cited the Acts of Maryland, November, 1781, c. 22, and April, 1782, c. 31.

Thomas Crawford was a petitioner to the Hon. James S. Morsel], one of the judges of this Court, for the benefit of the insolvent act of the District of Columbia, of the 3d of March, 1803. [2 Stat. at Large, 237.] Peter Brady, one of his creditors, appeared by Mr. Wallach, his attorney, and orally objected to the discharge of the debtor, alleging that he had before applied for the benefit of the act, and upon certain allegations being filed against him, had withdrawn his…

Assumpsit, by the payee against the drawer of the defendant’s inland bill on William Lee, and by him accepted, payable to the plaintiff or order. offered William Lee, the acceptor, as a witness to prove that the bill was drawn for the accommodation of the plaintiff, without any consideration as between him and the defendant; and cited Chitty on Bills, 528, Ed. 1821, Phila., in a note. objected that no party to a negotiable paper can be a witness to invalidate it, or rather…

Assumpsit, against the defendant as indorser of Edgar Patterson’s note for $49.23, payable to John Shreve or order, sixty days after date, and indorsed, “for the Union Steamboat.

<p>If the agency be special, the plaintiff must show the transaction to be within the scope of the agency.</p> <p>The declarations of the agent in support of his authority, will not ho received in evidence, unless cotemporaneous with, and constituting part of, the res gestee.</p>

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace for a penalty of $20. The warrant commanded the constable to take Pat.

Four judgments for $20 each were rendered by a justice of the peace against the appellant, with costs, upon four separate warrants. 1.

This was a suit against the defendant, who was commissioner of claims under the Act of Congress of the 9th of April, 1816, § 11, [3 Stat. at Large, 261.] offered two accounts settled and certified by the proper officers of the treasury department, according to the act of 3d of March, 1797. objected, because, as he contended, the defendant was not a receiver of public money within the meaning of that act.

Petition for freedom. Mr. Alexander Scott ] had ’ Been. appointed by the President of the United' States, an agent to Carac-cas in South America. He went with an intention to remain permanently, if certain events should happen. He took the petitioner with him, and she remained there with him more than a year.

Assumpsit, by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note for $64.25. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff “ subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the deposition of C. Neale, the indorser of the note be admissible as evidence in this cause, without a release from the plaintiffs; and, if admissible, whether it be sufficient’ per se to take the case out of the statute of limitations.

Walter Neavton had applied to one of the judges of this Court on the 19th of February, 1822, to be discharged under the Insolvent Act of the 3d of March, 1803, [2 Slat, at Large, 237,] and obtained his discharge on the 4th of March, 1822. in behalf of Ann Key and Bernard Spaulding, claiming to be creditors of Newton, on the 17th of February, 1824, filed allegations against him, charging, 1.

The prisoner was indicted at common law, for stealing certain bank-notes, the property of W. B. Stewart, to wit, two banknotes of the Bank of Virginia, and one ten-dollar bank-note of the Bank of the United States.

Debt upon a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of the plaintiff for $150.33, at ninety days, dated at Alexandria, (D. C.) August 21, 1822, payable in the Union Bank of Georgetown.

Upon the motion of the Farmers Bank of Alexandria, a rule was granted them against Isaac Robbins, trustee of Amos Alexander, an insolvent debtor, to show cause why he should not pay to that bank, out of the moneys arising from the sales of the real estate of the said Amos Alexander, in his hands, as trustee, the balance due to the bank upon a judgment obtained against him by the bank, and which was in full force and effect when he took the oath of insolvency.

This was an action upon the case for maliciously holding the plaintiff to bail, upon a ne exeat, for a much larger sum than .was due.

This was a suit in equity, in which the plaintiff.stated that he was surety for Thomas Mount, in two single bills for $1000 each, dated in July, 1815; one payable with interest on the 1st of July, 1817, and the other on the 1st of July, 1818, to Anthony Crease, the defendant’s testator; and when he thus became surety, he took a deed of trust upon the property of Mount for his indemnification.

Bill in equity by the United States, against Murdoch, Youille, Wardrope, & Co. of Madeira, and James H. Hooe, administrator of William Hodgson, deceased. It charges that M., Y., W., & Co. shipped certain casks of wine to Hodgson in his lifetime, either on consignment, or as a sale to him. That Hodgson gave bond and security for the duties, upon which judgment was recovered by the United States against Hodgson in his lifetime, and remained in full force until his death.

Assumpsit, for the defendant’s proportion of one Johnson’s expenses in Tennessee, upon a certain business. Plea, non assumpsit, and issue.

Before the Court had made the rule (of 1821,) respecting applications for a change of venue, had,, as he stated, moved the Court to change the venue in this cause, upon an affidavit stating no reasons for the plaintiff’s belief that he would not have a fair trial in this county. The affidavit was handed to the Court without being filed, and remained in the drawer of the chief judge.

William Devaughn was sworn as a witness to the grand jury, who asked him whether he saw John Ball gaming at Mrs. Garner’s. 'He refused to answer, saying that he could not answer the question without criminating himself. This was stated to the Court, by the grand jury, in writing.

Assumpsit for $100,000, the amount of a prize drawn against the ticket, No. 2929, in class No. 5 of the National Lottery. The case was elaborately argued on the 7th,'8th, 9th, and 10th of December, 1824, and on the 11th,

Bill in equity by Joseph B. Ladd, against the widow legatees, and devisees, of John G. Ladd, deceased.

Debt upon a revenue bond. The writ was returnable to this term. contended that the United States could not have judgment at this term, because the defendant, according to the rules and practice of this Court, is not bound to appear, nor the marshal to return the writ until the first day after the end of the Court. 3 Tucker’s Bl. 274, 275., The marshal continues to serve process returnable to the Court until the last day of the term. insisted that the act of Congress of March…

moved to reinstate this action of replevin, it having been discontinued at the last term by the nonappearance of the defendant. The defendant’s affidavit stated that Mr. Caldwell, ever since the death of Mr. Bates, had acted as the counsel of his executors. That the writ, in this cause, was returnable to the last term.

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace in a case, above the value of $20, which had been tried by a jury before the justice under the Act of the 1st of March, 1823, “ to extend the jurisdiction of the justices,” &c. It was objected, that a justice of the peace trying causes by a jury, was a judge of an inferior court of the United States, and therefore ought tobe appointed quamdiu se bene gesserit; and not having been so appointed, but holding his…

Assumpsit, for dividends upon the testator’s bank stock, accruing after his death, he having died insolvent, and largely indebted to the United States. He was also indebted to the bank, as in-dorser of discounted notes. The bank claimed a lien on his stock, under the 11th section of their charter, and a right to set off the dividends against this debt. One of the notes offered as a set-off became due after his death.

Debt upon the bond of James White, senior, charging the defendant as executor. The defendant pleaded ne tinques executor. Upon the issues joined on these pleas, the plaintiffs, in order to charge the defendant as executor de son tort, proved that James White died in possession of considerable personal property, which came to the hands of the defendant.

The defendant had been appointed by the Court, a constable for the county of Washington, and gave bond in 1818. The suit was brought to recover the amount which he had received upon two writs of fieri facias, in favor of A. and J. B. Holmead.

Indictment for forging “ a certain paper-writing purporting to be a request or order upon one R. Woodward for the loan of money, and to be signed by one John Duley, with the name of the said John Duley thereunto affixed, the tenor of which paper-writing is as follows, to wit: ‘ Georgetown, October 19th, 1824. Mr. R. Woodard, Sir, would you Be so kind as To lend me ten or 15 Dollars And Eye will call And settle with you on the 20th.

Rule to show cause why four executions, in favor of Muncas-ter against Mason and Jones, should not be quashed, because issued more than a year and day after judgment. showed for cause, as to two of the executions, thatthe plaintiff had been delayed by injunction obtained by the defendant, Mason, and finally dissolved under a mandate from the Supreme Court of the United States ; and as to the two other executions, that the plaintiff’ had issued his executions in due time, but…

The Court (Morsell, J., contra,) dismissed the appeal, upon the ground that a fact once tried by a jury cannot be reexamined otherwise than according to the rules of the common law.

The books of the Bank of Washington were offered in evidence by the defendant, to show that a check for $255 drawn by Wilson, was payable and paid to Boyd. J. H. Reiley, the bookkeeper of the bank, stated that the bank-books did not show whether the check was payable to order or bearer, nor whether it was paid to the person whose name appears on the books as payee. •

On the 21st of March, 1823, the plaintiff issued a capias ad respondendum against Samuel Fearson and Joseph Fearson, returnable on the 2d Monday of April, 1823, and which was returned “ Cepi Joseph; Non Est Samuel.” No alias capias was issued against Samuel. Joseph gave special bail, and pleaded the general issue; and now at the trial term, contended that the cause ■was discontinued by not continuing process against Samuel, the joint defendant named in the first capias.

<p>Replevin ; avowry for rent arrear.</p> <p>moved the Court to substitute Mr. Van Ness for the defendant Waters, the latter being only the bailiff of the former in a distress for rent.</p> <p>The Court refused, (nem. con.) but on the trial, being pressed by the case of Wise v. Bowen, decided at April term, 1821, [ante, 239,] the Court (Morsell, J., contrd,) permitted the defendant, Waters, to testify as a witness, not perceiving any material difference in principle between this case and that of Wise v. Bowen, on that point. In that ease the defendant, Bowen, a constable, had taken the property in execution. The plaintiff claimed the property and replevied it. The. officer, upon receiving indemnity from the plaintiff in the execution, was permitted by the Court to testify for himself, (Cranch, C. J., doubting.)</p>

The defendant and two others were indicted for a riot, and also for a simple assault and battery, in separate counts of the same indictment. offered to examine as witnesses, the two who had forfeited their recognizances.

Debt on a replevin-bond. The breach alleged, Was' the nonpayment of the damages and costs found by the verdict of the jury in the trial of the action of replevin, for' the defendant in replevin against the plaintiff in replevin. The defendant, who was a suréty in the replevin-bond, pleaded in substance, that the plaintiff in replevin was always, after: the judgment of the Court in that action, ready to return the replevied property, and still is ready to return it.

Debt on an appeal-bond, dated 5th June, 1819, in the penalty of $>42,000, with condition, which, after reciting the judgment of Charles county court in favor of Scott for $20,000, and' that the said John Law hath “ prayed an appeal to the next court of appeals to be held for the western shore,” says, “ Now the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bound John Law shall not pursue the directions of the Act of Assembly of Maryland, entitled ‘An Act for…

<p>In an attachment under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, if tlie garnishee he taken and held to special bail under the sixth section of that act, no judgment can be rendered against him until he has appeared.</p> <p>The capias against the garnishee must not be to answer to the plaintiff “ in a plea of trespass on the case,” &e., but to appear at the return of the writ, to make answers to such interrogatories, in writing, as he should, by rule of court, be required to answer touching the property of the defendant in his possession or charge at the time of serving such writ of attachment, or at any other time; and render his body to prison, or pay the condemnation-money if judgment should pass against him.</p> <p>A judgment of condemnation may, for irregularity, be set aside at a subsequent term.</p>

Scire facias against the terre-tenants of Ariana French, executrix of George French, deceased.

<p>In an action against the indorser of a promissory note, made in the name of a firm, it is not material that the partnership of the makers had been dissolved before the making of the note, it being the renewal of a note given during the existence of the partnership.</p> <p>Demand of payment on one of the firm is sufficient to charge the indorser.</p> <p>A written notice of the dishonor of the note, left at the dwelling-house of the indorser, is sufficient.</p> <p>If the maker is not found at his office or his dwelling-house, on the last day of grace, so that payment of the note cannot be demanded, the note is dishonored.</p>

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace for the county of Washington’, who had non-prossed the Corporation of Washington upon five separate warrants issued against the appellee for suffering and permitting a faro table to be set up and kept in his house on five several days, viz., the 1st, 2d, 3d, 24th, and 25th of December, 1823.

<p>If the garnishee in an attachment under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, is only one of the members of a mercantile company indebted to the defendants, he cannot be chargeable alone, as garnisheenor can the garnishee be charged upon interrogatories, unless he admits that he is indebted to the defendant.</p>

<p>If the plaintiff has a legal claim he must pursue his remedy at law, as far as he can, before resorting to equity.</p>

Assumpsit for the price of flannels shipped by order of the defendants. The defendants, thinking they were invoiced too high, had them appraised, and sold them. contended that the defendants, having received and sold the goods, are bound to pay for them at the invoice price. If they did not like the price they should not have taken them.

This was an action upon a policy on the brig Manufactor, at and from Rio to Santos, valued at $3200. The defendants, at the trial, contended that the vessel was fraudulently overvalued, and that the offer to abandon was too late. The policy was dated 20th November, 1821. The loss was known here on the 24th of November.

<p>When evidence is offered of what a deceased witness testified at a former trial of the - same cause, that evidence must be of the very words of the deceased witness.</p> <p>A power to release a debt cannot be proved by general reputation.</p>

Indictment for assault and battery upon one Theodore Meade, who was a constable employed by the landlprd to levy a distress for rent. Having knocked at the outer door, it was partially opened by Mrs. Stott, but seeing the constable, she instantly endeavored to close it. The constable, having one arm and one leg in, forced it open and entered.

<p>If the clerk who made the original entries in the testator’s books, be made executor, those entries are competent evidence in an action by the executor for goods sold and delivered by the testator to the defendant.</p>

Scire facias, issued in May, 1824, to revive a judgment rendered on the 6th of December, 1805, in favor of the plaintiff’s testator, against the defendant Henderson.

'Assumpsit, against the indorser of Farish’s note. The defendant pleaded the Virginia statute of gaming of the 8th of December, 1792, (p. 174,) which makes absolutely void all contracts where any part of the consideration is for money or other valuable thing won at any game. General demurrer, and joinder.. cited Woodson v. Barreit et al. 2 Hen. & Mun. 80. cited Alcinbrook v. Hall, 2 Wils. 309.

Action on the case for negligence, in omitting to demand payment on Saturday, when the third day of grace was Sunday. The draft was dated on the 26th of June, 1818, at ninety days; and became payable on the 24th-27th of September.

Bill in equity, for an injunction, and for leave to sue for freedom., in formá pauperis. The cause was set for hearing on bill and answer. The facts of the case appeared to be as follow: Anthony Addison, being the owner of negro Joanna, the mother of the complainants, in the year 1797, sold her to Walter D. Addison for the term of twelve years, without saying any thing of her increase.

Assumpsit by the indorsee of the defendant’s promissory note for $132, dated November 19, 1814, payable with interest, two years after date, to the order of W. Rhodes, father of the plaintiff. The present action was commenced on the 4th of September, 1822. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and the statute of limitations. At the bottom of the note was written the following receipt: “ February 12, 1821, received $5 on the above.

Debt upon an administration-bond, given by the defendant and the Rev. S. B. Balch, as coexecutors of T. B. Beall. The breach assigned was' in not accounting for, and paying over to the persons entitled to the same, a debt of $4120, due by the defendant to his testator.

TRESPASS and false imprisonment. William Mickum was a constable, and S. Mickum was his surety in his official bond. W. Mickum, the constable, had received money for Charles Paul, and had failed to pay it over. Paul, supposing S. Mickum to be liable to him for the money received by William Mickum, the constable, brought suit in his own name against S. Mickum, before a justice of the peace.

Attachment, under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, and laid in the hands of Richard Smith, cashier of the office of the Bank of the United States at Washington, who was summoned ás garnishee.

<p>Upon the trial of an issue upon allegations of fraud against an insolvent debtor, it must appear that the intended fraud was against creditors who were such at the time of the supposed fraudulent conveyance, and at the time of trial.</p> <p>A bond fide sale, by the debtor, of his property or any part of it, for the purpose of paying certain preferred creditors, to the exclusion of others, is not a fraud of which he can be convicted upon allegations filed under the insolvent act.</p> <p>The inserting in the deed, a consideration less than the true consideration paid, is not, of itself a fraud, if a fair, valuable, bond fide consideration was paid, or contracted to be paid.</p> <p>A deed, void as to creditors, because not accompanied and followed by possession, although technically fraudulent as to creditors, is not evidence of fraud of which the debtor can be convicted upon allegations under the insolvent act, if there was a real, bond fide consideration.</p> <p>Upon the trial of an issue upon allegations under the insolvent act, the burden of proof is on the complaining creditors to show the fraudulent intent.</p>

Assumpsit for one fourth part of the freight earned by the ship Alleghany, of which Magruder owned one fourth, Thomas Peter one eighth, George Peter one eighth, and the defendants one half. contends that this is a partnership ; and that one partner cannot sue another at law. The reasons applicable to general partnerships apply to this case as between these parties.

The plaintiffs recovered two judgments against the defendant, at June term, 1818, for about $1,600, issued writs of ca. sa., upon which the defendant was taken and committed in execution, and gave prison-bounds bonds, which he forfeited, and upon which the plaintiffs recovered judgment against him and his sureties.

This was an attachment issued by the clerk of this Court upon a warrant of a justice of the peace directed to the clerk, under the Act of Maryland, 1795, c. 56, upon a debt of $8.87. moved for judgment against the garnishee upon his default of appearance. suggested that the case, being for a debt under $20, .was not within the jurisdiction, of this Court, unless the plaintiff should proceed according to the directions of the Maryland Act of 1791, c. 68, § 1, by which it is…

This was an appeal from the Orphans’ Court. Nicholls and others, creditors of Thomas C. Hodges, deceased, filed a petition to the judge of the Orphans’ Court of this county on the 24th of September, 1823, stating that the estate of the deceased is insolvent; that the allowance, made by the judge to the executor, on settlement of his account of administration on the 26th of October, 1822, of a commission of ten per cent, on the amount of debts paid ($21,765.83) equal to…

Covenant on a charter-party. Upon the return of the capias ad respondendum, Mr. Key moved that the defendant might be permitted to appear without special bail. The affidavit was made in the State of Maine, before Eben Clapp, who calls himself a justice of the peace.

This was a bill in equity, filed by William Robinson against James Leander Cathcart and others, for the specific execution of a contract for the sale of a tract of land in Fairfax county, in Virginia, by the plaintiff to the defendant, J. L.Oathcart.

Upon the return of the habeas corpus, in behalf of N. V. H. Bennett, it appeared that he was committed by virtue of the following warrant: “ District of Columbia, Washington county, ss. “ Whereas, on the information of Samuel C. Raymond on oath, it has been made to appear that N. V. H. Bennett, now before me, being accused of having feloniously stolen and taken away from four to five hundred dollars in bank-notes the property of one N. Wood ; and wearing apparel, to wit: one…

The bill in this cause, was taken for confessed, for want of appearance and answer withyi three months after filing the bill, according to the 6th rule of the rules of chancery practice, prescribed by the Supreme Court of the United States for the Circuit Courts; and an interlocutory decree was passed for a sale of the property, and at the end of the decree it was stated that it would be final, “ unless cause shown by the end of the next term thereafter.” No cause being…

This was an action of debt Upon the defendant’s administration-bond, in which Barrett seeks to recover, in right of his deceased wife, (who, before her marriage with him, was the widow of Walter B. Smallwood,) one third part of $1,330.35, which came to the defendant’s hands, under the following circumstances.

This was an action upon an open policy on freight of the schooner Eleanor Simmes, from St. Thomas to Havana, amounting to $3,100. The vessel was lost near Havana. The facts of the ease appeared to be, that the vessel was built by one Levin Stewart, for the plaintiff, who was master of the vessel, and who had her rigged at his expense.

This was a bill in equity, filed on the 31st of January, 1818, by Daniel McClean, in his lifetime, to enjoin proceedings on a judgment at law obtained against him by the defendant, Mordecai Miller, for $259.55, with interest from the 1st of July, 1816, and costs.

<p>In Alexandria county, a slave guilty of manslaughter, was punished by burning in the hand and whipping with ten stripes.</p>

This was a chancery attachment in the county of Alexandria, District of Columbia, to attach the effects of John Hooe, a resident of Virginia, in the hands of Jonathan Janney, a resident of the county of Alexandria, for a debt due by Hooe to Mordecai Miller & Son, of Alexandria. The subpcena was served upon Janney on the 3d of April, 1824.

MaRY Ann Magruder, administratrix of Thomas Magruder, sold the goods of her intestate and took notes payable to herself personally. She brought suit upon one of the notes and died before judgment. Her administrator entered his appearance in the suit and obtained judgment. The administrator de bonis non on her husband’s estate moved the Court to order the judgment to be entered upon the docket for his use.

offered in evidence a deposition, taken under the Act of Congress, before a person who certifies himself to be mayor of Petersburg, but who did not affix his official seal to his certificate, nor was there any other evidence of his being mayor.

Assumpsit. The plea of limitations was filed after the rule-day. had instructed the clerk not to make up an issue on that plea; but, under the general practice of the bar to suffer the clerk to enter the pleadings and make up the issues, it is probable that inadvertently he made the entry on the docket, “ non ass't., Urn's, and issue. now moved the Court to strike out the plea of limitations. stated (his affidavit not being required by the plaintiff’s counsel,), that he was…

These causes, in which the judgment of this Court had been reversed in the Supreme Court of the United States in January term, 1825, were sent down to this Court by mandate, setting aside the verdict and proceedings up to the declaration. now moved this Court to dismiss these suits, according to intimation given in the opinion of the Supreme Court in 10 Wheat. 410, that Court having decided that the holders of the tickets had no right to use the names of the corporation and…

Petition for freedom. On the trial of this cause, Thomas Bingay, a witness for the petitioner, testified that he was present at the bargain between the defendant and Mary Greenfield, for the purchase of the petitioner, who was held by the said Mary Greenfield, as a slave for life, and was offered for sale by her mistress; that the price agreed upon to be paid by the defendant, was $250.

<p>offered to read a paper in evidence to the jury, to which the plaintiff’s counsel objected.</p>

Trover for a slave. This cause having come on to trial again upon the amended pleadings, [ante, 534.] The Court, at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury, that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant, without the consent or authority of the plaintiff carried his female slave away to N. Hampshire and did not bring her back again and return her to the plaintiff, and that by reason of her being so carried away, the plaintiff has lost her, the…

Matthew D. Reardon petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, stating that he was in custody of a constable by virtue of a ca. sa. issued by Amos Alexander, Esq., a justice of the peace, upon a debt accruing before his discharge under the “ Act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia,” the tenth section of which provides that the Court before whom the process is return'ed or returnable, or any judge thereof, shall discharge the debtor in such case,…

This was an appeal from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace, upon a bond for $100 penalty, with condition to pay $50 on the first of February, 1820. The judgment was for $50 to carry interest from the 1st of February, 1820, till paid, there being then more than five years’ interest due.

This was a bill in equity, by the executors of John Stump, against the heirs at law and executrix of George Deneale, to charge his real estate with the balance of a judgment at law, recovered by the plaintiffs against the testatrix, amounting to $5,000, and interest and costs upon a contract in which the testator, George Deneale, was surety for his brother, James Deneale; the said sum being the balance due after deducting from the amount of the judgment the net proceeds of…

<p>Debt against the maker of a promissory note for $5,000, dated January 8th, 1824, payable to and indorsed by Jacob Hoffman to the plaintiffs, and given'by Hoffman to them as a collateral guaranty to secure them against their note for the like amount, dated January 9th, 1824, lent to Hoffman for the use of the defendant and Hoffman in a business in which they were jointly concerned.</p> <p>The note was made payable at the Farmers and Mechanics Bank in Georgetown, and the declaration avers a demand at that bank.</p> <p>prayed the Court to instruct the jury, that they must be satisfied that payment of the note was demanded af the said bank before the plaintiffs can recover in this action. Rowe v. Young, 2 Brod. & Bing. 165: Chitty on Bills, 321.</p> <p>cited the case of Rhodes v. Gent, 5 B and A. 244 ; 7 Serg. & Rawle, 84; Roden v. Sharpe, 4 Johns. 183: Wolcot v. Van Santvoord, 17 Johns. 248; 3 Chitty’s Pleadings, 4; Butterworth v. LeDespencer, 3 Maulé & Selwyn, 150; Pearse v. Pemberthy, 3 Camp. 261.</p>

Action upon the case. The declaration states that the plaintiffs, in November, 1818, recovered judgment, in this Court, against John W. Bronaugh, and George Johnston, his appearance-bail, for $1,411.10 and costs, and that, by a memorandum at the foot of the judgment it was directed to be discharged by the payment of $705.55 with legal interest thereon from the 5th of September, 1809, till paid, as appears by. the record thereof.

This was an action of assumpsit against Jacob Hoffman and George Johnson, for money paid, laid out, and expended by the. plaintiffs, for the use of the defendants, and at their request. Johnson only was taken, and the writ abated, as to the other defendant, by the marshal’s return that he was not an inhabitant of the district.

At May term, 1825, Mr. Marbury, having given previous notice, obtained a rule in behalf of the Levy Court of Washington county, D. C., upon Tench Ringgold, marshal of the District of Columbia, to show cause “why judgment should not be rendered against him in favor of the said Levy Court for the sum of $2,266.51, which said sum of money” they claim against him for their proportion of the fines, penalties, and forfeitures, “ collected, or which ought to have been collected ”…

Bill IN equity by the heirs of Walter B. Smallwood against Biehard Barrett, who married the widow of Smallwood and the mother and guardian of his heirs, whom he, Barrett, has survived. It states that Smallwood, in his lifetime contracted to purchase certain land of Murdoch, and held the same, under that contract, at the time of his death, not having received a legal conveyance of the same.

<p>In a prosecution for keeping a disorderly house, the general character of the house is in issue, and may he given in evidence.</p> <p>A house kept for the meeting of men and women for illegal and obscene purposes, or for the purpose of enticing young girls there for debauchery, is a disorderly house.</p>

The by-law provides “ that no person shall buy any provision or articles of food in the market, and during the market hours aforesaid, for the purpose of selling the same again in the said market, or in any part of the city; nor shall any person out of the market buy up any provision or article of food coming to said market, under the penalty of six dollars for every offence.”

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace in a cause tried before him by a jury, under the act of March 1st, 1823, [3 Stat. at Large, 743,] extending the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, &e. The suit was brought upon an account for damages sustained by Blanford, the plaintiff below, by reason of false imprisonment, at the instance of the defendant Cross. There was a trial by jury, before the justice.

Replevin. upon the return of the writ, moved for a return of the property. ' The defendant was a constable, and had levied an execution on a hackney-coach and horses, in the possession, and as the property, of Michael Murray.

Upon the return of a fieri facias issued on the 25th of October, 1823, Mr. Morfit, for the defendant, in the case of Biggs & Gai-ther v. Barron, moved to quash the writ because more than a year had elapsed since the last preceding writ of execution had been issued, which was in April, 1822, and there had been no scire facias to revive the judgment.

A deposition was offered, iu evidence, by the plaintiff’s counsel, which was taken upon the solemn affirmation of the witness, who, the magistrate certified, was “ conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath.” objected that it did not sufficiently appear to the Court, “ by testimony,” that the deponent “ is one of those who profess to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an path,” according to the provisions of the constitution of Maryland, as amended by the act of…

A sum of $100 had been entered to the credit of the defendant, in his bank-book by Mr. Bradley, the plaintiffs’ bookkeeper, and he was called to be sworn and examined as a witness for the plaintiffs to prove the mistake and that the credit ought to have been given to the Franklin Insurance Company, who had, in fact, deposited the money. objected that the witness was interested, because he is chargeable for the loss if the plaintiffs should not recover it of this defendant.…

This was originally a joint action against Weaver and Burdick. Burdick was first taken, and the writ returned non est as to Weaver; but the latter was taken on the second or third writ, before May, 1825. supposing that Weaver had npt at that time been taken, altered his declaration by inserting that fact, and by declaring against Burdick alone, who thereupon confessed judgment.

Assumpsit against the indorser of George B. Magruder’s note for $643.21, dated November 8th, 1817, and payable to the defendant or order, seven years after date, with interest. The maker died in August, 1823, the defendant became his administrator before the note became payable. No demand of payment of the note was made upon the defendant as administrator of the maker. contended that it was not necessary to make any such demand in order to charge the defendant as indorser.

Assumpsit, upon a special written contract; and for money bad and received.

Upon habeas corpus the marshal returned the cause of caption and detention of Mr. Smith “ to be for sundry militia fines imposed by the Legionary Court of the 1st regiment, 1st brigade of the militia of the District of Columbia, put into the hands of the said marshal for collection according to law.” By the 4th section of the Act pf Congress of the 1st of July, 1812, [2 Stat. at Large, 769,] supplementary to the act more effectually to provide for the organization of the…

Debt upon the official bond of the teller of the Union Bank of Georgetown, the condition of which was, that “ he should faithfully perform all the duties assigned to him in said bank, and make good to the said bank all damages which the same shall sustain through his unfaithfulness or want of care.” The only breach assigned was, that the defendant, as teller of the bank, received C. P. Beeding’s check on the Bank of Columbia, for $405, which was not paid.

Debt upon the official bond of Richmond Johnson, a teller of the Office of Discount and Deposit of the Bank of the United States, at Washington, dated 21st September, 1819, in the penalty of $20,000, the condition of which was, that he should “ well and faithfully execute the said office, and in all things relating to the same, should well and faithfully behave.” By the 14th article of the constitution of the bank, which is contained in the 11th section of the act of…

The plaintiffs, describing themselves as “ trustees and agents of the German Lutheran Church,” filed their bill in equity against Charles A. Beatty, heir at law of Charles Beatty, deceased, and John T. Ritchie, who claimed title to a lot in Beatty and Hawkins’s addition to Georgetown, which they aver Charles Beatty, the proprietor of the land, had in the year 1769, at the time of laying it out into lots “ distinguished and set apart,” “ for the sole use and benefit of the…

Bill in chancery, praying for a decree under the Act of Maryland, to record a deed of trust from Margaret Bogenriff to John Mountz, to secure a debt of $500 due by her son Valentine Bo-genriff to the plaintiff; and to charge the Bank of Columbia, who took a subsequent deed of trust from the same Margaret Bogen-riff to secure a debt due by her said son to the bank.

Ejectment, for an undivided moiety of lot No. 3, in square No. 461, in the city of Washington.

The capias ad respondendum, was issued in trespass on the case. The declaration was in covenant upon a sealed instrument covenanting to pay certain debts amounting to $846.47, with interest. The defendant appeared and pleaded “ covenants performed,” &c., upon which there was an issue and a verdict for the plaintiff. on the 20th of June, 1826, moved in arrest of judgment, on account of the variance between the writ and the declaration, and cited 3 Bl.