Volume 5 — District of Columbia Reports

Bill for injunction to stay-execution levied upon land sold by the debtor after judgment, and while it was dead or sleeping. There was also a motion at law to quash the return of the fieri facias.

The warrant, dated on the 23d, and returnable on the 24th of November, 1836, was to arrest the defendant, &c., to answer to the mayor, board of aldermen and board of common council of the city of Washington in a plea that he render unto them the full sum of fifty dollars which he owes and unjustly detains, “ for that he the said Isaac N. Carey, being a free negro, did, on the 22d day of November, 1836, sell perfumery in the city of Washington, without first having obtained a…

Bill in Equity to restrain the defendants, Hays and others, from receiving, and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States and the Treasurer, from paying to the defendants, the amount awarded to the assignees and representatives of Hays, under the French treaty of spoliations.

<p>Upon allegations filed in court, within two yeavs after the application of an insolvent debtor for the benefit of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia, if the defendant do not appear to answer the same, after being duly siimmoned, the Court will proceed to take evidence ex parte in support of the allegations, and, if they find them to be true, will direct.that the order of discharge, before made by a judge out of court, be rescinded, and that the defendant be precluded from the benefit of the act.</p>

Indictment. The first count was for stealing the goods of one Ecklóff. The second count was for receiving them, knowing them to be stolen. contended that the Court ought to oblige the attorney for the United States to elect the count upon which he would proceed; and they cited Russell on Crimes. The Court, (Morsell, J., absent,) refused.

This was an indictment against Richard H. White for burning the treasury buildings of the United States. The indictment contained three counts.

<p>It is not larceny in A to receive goods under a false pretence that the owner had sent him for them, although A appropriated them to his own use.</p>

<p>A certificate of freedom is not such a “ pass” as is contemplated by the 19th section of the Maryland Act of 1796, c. 67.</p>

In this case there were five indictments successively found against the defendant. 1.

Indictment for burning the treasury building of the United States.

There were two indictments against the defendant. The first (Na. 176,) was for a simple assault and battery at common law upon one John Sybert.

The bill in equity in this case was filed in 1826, by Josiah Thompson and his wife, against the heirs of George King, to obtain the conveyance of a house and lot in Georgetown, in execution of an agreement between Thompson and G. King, in the lifetime of the latter ; or that the cost of the improvements made by Thompson, in expectation of obtaining the title, should be decreed to be a specific lien on the lot, George King having died insolvent.

intermarried with Ann Berry. Shortly before the marriage, they entered into the following agreement: “ Robert Marshall and Ann Berry; marriage contract: Whereas Robert Marshall and Ann Berry, both of Prince George’s county, State of Maryland, are about, to intermarry, it is therefore agreed by the parties before the marriage, that the said Ann Berry shall hold in herself all her right, title, and interest in the following funds of her own, namely, one hundred and fifty…

The bill in equity .in this case states, that on.the 2d of July, 1832, the complainant passed to the defendants his twenty-six promissory notes of that date, each for $274.67, payable to them at different times, from sixteen to forty-four months, amounting to $7,141.-42, three of which notes had been passed away by the defendants to Clagett & Washington ; that on the 30th of December, 1833, he entered into an agreement with the defendants, to anticipate the payment of those…

Scire facias on a recognizance dated January 12th, 1835, in the sum of $1,000, to be paid if Francis Dixon should not appear on the 13th of January, 1835, or should depart from the Court without its leave.

80, § 5. Mr. Clement Cox and Mr. Dandridge contended that the corporation of Washington had no power to make such a by-law, as their charier gives them no such express power, and as it is not necessary for the exercise of any power expressly given. It is necessary that slaves should be registered in order to enable the corporation to execute the power to restrain the nightly meetings of free negroes and slaves.

Indictment for stealing wood from General Van Ness, of the value of seventy-five cents. The defendant was found guilty on the 7th of April, 1837, in the absence of Cranch, C. J., and immediately sentenced to be imprisoned one month and to pay a fine of one dollar, the jury having recommended him to mercy and his counsel having waived the usual delay of four days, given to move in arrest of judgment or for a new trial.

This cause came on again for trial upon the venire de novo awarded at the last term. {Ante, 38.) The jurors, as called to the book, were sworn on the voir dire, and the chief justice put this question to each of them, namely : “ Have you formed and delivered any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, Richard H. White, upon the indictment upon which he is now to be tried ? ” Twenty-nine were rejected upon their answer in the affirmative. contended that as it…

Assumpsit against the indorser of three promissory notes of Moses Duffy, dated at New Orleans on the 23d of June, 1824, and payable respectively, at one, two, and three years, each note being for the sum of $363.81§.

Assumpsit, against the indorser of J. B. Gorman’s note for one hundred dollars. offered to examine J. B. Gor-man, the maker of the note, to prove that it was made to be discounted at the Bank of Washington to take up a note for one hundred and five dollars with the defendant’s indorsement then about becoming due at the Bank of the United States; but that it was discounted by the plaintiff, without the consent of the defendant, and that time was given to the maker, also…

This was an action for money bad and received, to recover money paid by the plaintiff while in commitment upon a ca. sa. issued upon a judgment of a justice of the peace against the plaintiff as executor de son tort of a living man, for damage done to land. contended that money paid under valid process cannot be recovered, and cited 5 Wheeler, 89 ; Selden, 72; Cobb v. Curtiss, 8 Johns. 470; While v. Aylesivorth, 9 Johns. 231, 232 ; Philip v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 414 ; Brisbane…

Ejectment, for lots Nos. 15 and 16, in square No. 620 in the city of Washington. At the trial it was admitted that Absalom Rodbird, Jr., was seized in fee of the lots, on the 30th of December, 1829, and died intestate in November, 1831, leaving the plaintiff’s lessor his only heir at law.

Bill in equity to redeem a mortgage of a leasehold estate; the complainant claiming as purchaser of the equity of redemption sold under a fieri facias against Shields, the mortgagor, upon a judgment for $30.25, recovered before a justice of the peace. The cause was set for hearing'on the bill, answers, general replication, and exhibits.

Assumpsit, upon the common money counts. The plaintiff and defendant had been partners in merchandise, and on the trial at March term, 1836, in order to prove a settlement of the partnership concerns, and an acknowledgment of a balance due by the defendant to the plaintiff he offered the testimony of-Wilson, who testified, that on some day, the particular time or year, he could not recollect, the plaintiff and defendant met at the plaintiff's shop on Twelfth Street West, and…

This was an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, by which the appellee recovered of the corporation, $40, which the appellee had paid for two years license to keep a livery-stable, issued in conformity with the provisions of the bylaw of the 28th October, 1831. cited Moses v. McFerlan, 2 Bur. 1005; Bize v. Dickason, 1 T. R. 285; Smith .v. Bromley, Doug. 696, note; Hunt v. Rousmanier, 8 Wheat. 174, 211; Morris v. Tarín, 1 Dallas, 147, 148; Lowry v. Bourdieu,…

On the 26th of May, 1837, W. B. Stokes, Richard C. Stock» ton, Lucius W. Stockton, and Daniel Moore filed their petition in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, praying the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Amos Kendall, Postmaster-General of the United States, commanding him to credit the petitioners with the amount awarded to them by the Solicitor of the Treasury of the United States, under an Act of Congress passed for their relief on the 2d of July, 1836,…

<p>A new trial will not be granted because tbe jury, by mistake, took out with them the plaintiff’s account, if it he withdrawn from them in a few minutes afterwards, by order of the Court.</p>

Assumpsit, upon a contract to deliver 1000 barrels of flour; half on the 5th, and the residue on the 15th of May, 1835.

Action upon the case, for maliciously causing the plaintiff to be arrested and imprisoned for ten days, without probable cause, upon a charge of felony.

Replevin of the plaintiff’s property, taken by the defendant, who was a constable, under and by virtue of a fieri facias issued by a justice of the peace upon a judgment, by him rendered, in an action of debt upon a bond, in the penalty of fifty dollars, the condition of which was that if a certain bay mare (described therein,) should be thereafter legally proven not to be the property of James Brown, then the bond to be in full force; otherwise, void.

Assumpsit, for lumber, sold and delivered. The evidence was, that the defendant, in payment of a debt, due to him, received a note purporting to be made by one W. Lancaster, dated February 9, 1833, for $150, at 60 days, payable to and indorsed by one Eleanor Gardiner in blank; and due on the 10th - 13th of April, 1833. The defendant indorsed it in blank, and put it into a bank for collection.

Trover for forty-nine slaves, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, by the following bill of sale: “For and in consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid, the receipt of which I hereby acknowledge, and the further'sum of eighteen thousand seven hundred and seventy-four dollars to be to me well and truly paid on or before the first day of November next, I have bargained, sold, and delivered to John B. Nevett of Mississippi, (planter,) the following negro slaves, to wit,…

<p>An action at law will not lie by an indorsee against a remote indorser of a promissory note, made and indorsed in Virginia, although made payable at the North-West Bank of Virginia, by whose charter, notes “ made negotiable ” at that bank, are put upon the footing of bills of exchange; and although it should be put in circulation as a negotiable instrument, and deposited in the bank for collection, before it became payable; and should be regularly protested, and regular notice given to the parties.</p> <p>An intermediate indorser of such a note is, therefore, a competent witness to invalidate the note.</p> <p>The rule, that a party to an instrument shall not be permitted to discredit it by his testimony, is applicable only to mercantile negotiable paper, which a promissory note, made and indorsed in Virginia, is not.</p>

Assumpsit against the maker of the note mentioned in the preceding case, which was in this form: “ Wheeling, March 22d, 1834. “ Sixty days after date, I promise to pay to the order of Richard Simmés, at the North-Western Bank of Virginia, $4,000, without defalcation, for value received. R. McKee, Agent $4,000. Wheeling Cotton Manufacturing Company.” Indorsed — Richard Simmes, Knox & McKee, M. Nelson, W. B. Atterbury.

The plaintiff was a purchaser of the property at a sale under a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage made by John Threlkeld, who had made a lease for life to one Riffle, but the lease was not recorded, and therefore operated only as a lease from year to year, at the will of the parties.

<p>An officer of the United States, being the bona fide owner of a slave in Portress Mun-roe, a place within the United States, hut not within the jurisdiction of any one of the States, and removing thence with his family to the city of Washington in the District of Columbia, to reside therein, and bringing Ms slave with him, cannot lawfully sell such slave witMn three years after such removal and importation; and such slave, by such importation and sale, becomes free. '</p>

The indictment was in these words : District of Columbia, Washington county, to wit: The jurors of the United States for the county aforesaid upon their oath present, that Charles Columbus, late of the county aforesaid, yeoman, on the fifteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirty-six, at Washington county aforesaid, and on other days and times between that day and the day of taking this inquisition, with force and arms, kept a certain…

These were bills in equity by husband and wife against trustees ; stating, that before marriage, the wife conveyed certain .personal property to the defendants in trust for the sole and separate use of the wife. That she is desirous to settle it all on her husband, and has requested the trustees to convey it to him accordingly, but they refuse because they have not the power, under the trust, to do so.

Bowen & Dowling filed their bill in equity for an injunction to prevent the present defendant, Howard, from issuing execution against them, upon a judgment for $33.50, which he had recovered against them, and which they had paid and satisfied to one Thomas Lloyd, who purchased the judgment at a sale thereof, by a constable who had seized it upon a fieri facias issued by one against the said Howard, and sold it under that execution.

Indictment for assault and battery. in cross-examining John Dixon, a witness for the United States, asked him whether he had been indicted for treason.

Indictment for forging a certificate of freedom for Mr. T. F. Mason’s slave Sandy.

Debt for two quarters’ rent on a demise at per annum, due November, 1832, and February, 1833.

Case, on warranty of a lot of bacon. The plaintiff offered in evidence a printed advertisement in the Alexandria Gazette, of a lot of “ prime bacon,” to be sold by the defendant; and that he paid for it the full price of sound bacon. The defendant offered evidence to prove that the plaintiff came to the warehouse of the defendant, and looked at the bacon as it hung, and, after examining it as much as he thought proper, agreed to take it.

<p>Chancery Attachment.</p>

Bill in equity by Elizabeth Dick, in behalf of herself, and such other creditors, of the late firm of John Laird & Son, and of John Laird, as shall choose to be made parties, and contribute to the expenses of the suit; against William Laird, surviving partner of the firm of John Laird & Son, and sole executor of the will of John Laird, deceased.

UpoN the return of a writ of habeas corpus, issued by order of the Court, it appeared that the prisoner, William Richardson, a colored man, was committed, by a warrant, issued by a j ustice of the peace, directed to the marshal, stating that whereas, F. B., a constable, had apprehended and brought before him, Negro William Richardson, “ charged with being a runaway; and whereas no proof has been adduced before me that the said William Richardson is not a runaway; you are…

The petition of Anthony Holmead for the certiorari, on the 17th of November, 1837, addressed to the Court in vacation, was presented to the chief judge.

Indictment, charging that the defendant kept a certain unlawful, disorderly, and ill-governed house as a common tavern, without license, and as a common tippling-house, and therein openly sold spirituous liquors to all persons calling for the same, and allowed the same to be drank by such persons in and about the said house, at all times both at day and at night, and on all days, both Sundays and other days, and did permit certain idle and ill-disposed persons, to the jurors…

Indictment for an assault upon one Susan Shelton. The evidence was that the defendant came into the house where Mrs. Shelton was sitting at a window.

Bill in equity to recover from the administrator of Amable Coursault, one half of the amount awarded to him, under the French treaty or convention of July 4th, 1831, as indemnification for the seizure and confiscation of the Brig Triphena and cargo.

Indictment for perjury. The perjury was assigned in a joint affidavit made by the defendant and one Jane Berkemer, who, in order to obtain from the United States a pension for one Mary Ann Thomas, as the child of one Orral T. Thomas, (a marine who died in the service of the United States,) made oath before a justice of the peace in Washington, that they are well acquainted with Mary Ann Thomas, and know her to be the legitimate heir and only child left by the said Thomas,”…

Indictment for burning the treasury building of the United States.

Four indictments were found by the grand jury against the defendant. 1. The first, (No. 146,) contained four counts.

<p>A deed of personal property, not acknowledged and recorded according to the Maryland Act of 1729, c. 8, is valid between the parties, and those claiming under them, although possession should not accompany and follow the deed.</p> <p>A deed of bargain and sale of her slaves, by a feme sole, to a trustee for her separate use, (notwithstanding her future coverture,) and without any control of her husband (one slave being delivered to the trustee in the name of all,) is a bar to the marital rights of the future husband, unless made without his privity or assent. But if made pending the treaty of marriage, without valuable consideration, and without the privity or knowledge of the husband, it is void as to him. The frequent declarations, however, of the husband, after the marriage, that the slaves were not his, but belonged exclusively to his wife, were evidence from which the jury might infer that the deed was made with his knowledge and assent.</p>

TheRE were three indictments against the defendant. Held: that the indictment against Miller, which was for keeping “ a certain gaming-table called a faro-bank,” did not describe an indictable offence.

<p>Appeal does not lie from a justice of the peace, who has rendered judgment for $5 only.</p>

Coote, a justice of the peace, who nonsuited the corporation in an action of debt for a penalty of twenty dollars ; “ for that the said Lucy Lasky, the keeper of a tavern or ordinary, in the third ward, at the city of Washington, did sell, or permit to be sold, spirituous liquors to slaves or other persons of color, on Sundays, and other days, between sunset and sunrise on the 4th instant, and at divers other times, contrary to the act or acts of the said mayor, &c., on that…

<p>If a second incumbrancer takes up a prior incumbrance', which was also a lien upon other property than that bound by the second incumbrance, the second incumbrancer may resort to the property bound by the first incumbrance, and enforce the lien upon it.</p>

A WRIT “ United Stales of America, ss. The President of the United States of America : To the Honorable the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States, for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the County of Washington ; Greeting. “ Whereas lately, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, before you, or some of you, in a cause between The United States, at the relation of William B. Stokes, Richard C. Stockton, and Daniel Moore,…

IndictMENT containing two counts. First, for keeping a “ certain large dog of a very fierce.and furious nature,” and suffering the same “ to go unmuzzled and at large in and about the public streets and highways in the county,” “ by reason whereof the good citizens of the United States,” “ were in great danger and hazard of being bit, maimed, and torn by the said dog, and of losing their lives, to the great damage, terror, and common nuisance of the good people of the United…

Indictment, under the Penitentiary Act, § 9, for stealing “ one silk reticule of the value of twenty cents, one silver pencil of the value of one dollar, one bank-note to the amount of fifty dollars, of the value of fifty dollars, for the payment of fifty dollars; three bank-notes, of the value of ten dollars each, to the amount of ten dollars each, for the payment of ten dollars each; of the banknotes, goods, and chattels of one Elizabeth Lee,” “ against the form of the…

<p>The criterion "by -which to decide whether two suits are for the same cause of action, is, whether the evidence properly admissible in the one will support the other.</p> <p>Parol evidence of the object and intention of a party in entering into a written agreement, and of the circumstances which induced him to make the contract, is not admissible, if there be no ambiguity in the written contract.</p>

Assumpsit, upon the defendant’s promissory note to Nicholas Harper, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff’s intestate. offered the indorser, Nicholas Harper, as a witness to prove payment by the defendant; and cited White v. Kibling, 11 Johns. 128; Hooper v. Davis, 1 Esp. 463; Gharrington v. Milner, Peake’s Com. 6, and Starkie on Ev. part 4, p. 300.

The decree of this Court in this cause, (ante, 102,) having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the ÍJnitéd States, at January term, 1838, with costs, and damages at the rate of six per cent, per annum; and a mandate having been filed on the 6th of April, 1838, commanding this Court “ that such execution and proceedings be had in said cause, as according to right and justice, and the laws of the United States, ought to be had, the said appeal notwithstanding,” the Court,…

These causes were heard together, on the bills, answers, general replications, and evidence. Mr. jR. S. Coxe and Mr. Jones, for Thomas J. Belt, contended, that the sale made under Belt’s deed of trust, was void, and ought to be set aside, because, 1. The trustee was not personally present at the sale. 2. That the whole lot was sold, when the sale of a part only would have been sufficient to pay the debt due to Pickerell under the deed of trust. 3.

Ejectment for land in the county of Washington, D. C. The plaintiff offered in evidence a deed from Smallwood C. Middleton to his son Samuel Middleton, under whom the lessors of the plaintiff claimed title.

The grand jury found five separate indictments against the defendant for larceny in stealing the goods of five different persons ; the property stolen being in each case, of the value of five dollars and upwards. ■ In each indictment the offence was stated to have been committed on the 4th of March, 1838. On the 5th of April, the defendant was found guilty in each case; and on the 21st of April, the Court sentenced him to the penitentiary for one year in each case. Thrúston?

contended that the corporation had no right to discriminate between white persons and free colored persons, by prohibiting the granting of tavern licenses to the latter; and relied upon the opinion of this Court in Carey’s case, at November term, 1835.

Assumpsit, to recover back the purchase-money from the defendants, for lot No. 5, in square No. 489, in Washington. The declaration had four counts: 1.

This was an action upon the case for deceit, by the purchaser of a female slave, by which the vendor was induced to sell her for less than the market price. The declaration contained two counts. 1.

Indebitatus assumpsit,. “ for sundry matter and articles properly chargeable in account, as by a particular account thereof herewith into Court exhibited appears,” amounting to j§97.93. Upon the trial, at March term, 1836, Mr. Z. C. Lee, for the defendant, in order to prove certain dates, read in evidence to the jury a part of the plaintiff’s account, which had been filed with the declaration.

<p>Assumpsit, for feeding cattle, See.</p> <p>offered to examine Mr. Owens, as a witness to prove that he, as agent of the defendant, contracted to purchase of the plaintiff seventy-four head of cattle; $500 to be paid in cash, and the residue by the 1st of November, when the defendant was to take the cattle away.</p> <p>objected to the testimony of Mr. Owens, until his agency should be proved; and that he was not competent to prove his own agency; and that, if proved, he was not competent, because interested.</p>

This was an action of covenant, upon the following instrument : “ Whereas Mary James has executed her bond or note, dated ihe 28th day of November, 1828, payable to me, on demand, for the sum of $2,620, which said bond or note was merely loaned to me for the purpose of raising money upon ; and whereas I have, since the execution of the said bond or note, as aforesaid, assigned it to Philip Alexander, of Fredericksburg, for value received of him.

The defendant was indicted for burning the Treasury building of the United Slates. A former indictment against the defendant, for the same offence, having been quashed upon demurrer at the last term, because it appeared, upon the record, that the offence was committed more than two years before the indictment was found; the grand jury found another indictment against hirn, charging the burning, as before, and that he fled from justice.

This was a rule to show cause why a writ of replevin, issued in the name of W. L. Brent and Robert J. Brent, against Lambert S. Beck, should not be quashed, because the goods replevied were in the custody of the law.

Replevin. The marshal had seized an iron chest as the property of one George K. Myers, under a fieri facias against him.

Beplevin; pleas, non cepit, and property in the defendant. The defendant, as marshal of the District of Columbia, took the goods in execution as the property of Bichard Ballard. The plaintiff claimed under a deed of trust to the plaintiff, dated June 19, 1834, to secure her about $900, due upon two promissory notes of the same date.

objected to a deposition of one Fournier, taken under a commission to D. C. Croxall, the United States Consul at Marseilles, in France, because, 1st. The commission was issued ex parte without notice to the defendant of an application for the commission, or of the filing the plaintiff’s interrogatories. 2d. Because it was inclosed in an envelop directed to the Chief Judge of the Court, when, by the commission the commissioner was required to “ send the same to the judges,”…

This was an attachment under the Maryland Act of .1795,' c. 56, to compel the defendant to answer to the plaintiff “ in a plea of trespass on the case.” The capias was also to answer in a plea of trespass on the case.

Bile in equity by the administrator of James Leveaux against the administrator of Thomas Brown, to which the defendant filed a general demurrer. The bill stated that in 1810, the ship General Eaton, J. S. Place, master, owned by Thomas Brown, a citizen of the United States, was captured by a French privateer and carried into Calais.

Replevin, for a hackney-coach and two horses, taken by the defendant as marshal of the District of Columbia, under a fieri facias against one William Smith, the brother of the plaintiff. Plea, property in the defendant, and traversing the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed title under a deed from the said William Smith, dated May 21, 1833, duly acknowledged and recorded on the same day, agreeably to the Act of Maryland of 1729, c. 8, § 5 and 6.

Trespass qaare clausum fregit. offered to prove by a witness, that some years ago, Simon Summers, an old and legal surveyor of the county of Alexandria, who is now dead, showed the witness a line of Chapman’s land, under whom the defendants claim to hold, at or near Hall’s Spring, and stated to the witness that Hall’s Spring was on the land of the Alexandersto which evidence the defendants objected, and the Court (Thruston, J., absent,) refused to permit the same to be given…

Bill in 'equity to open ail executor’s accounts after they had been settled more than twelve years in the Orphans’ Court. The plaintiff was the widow and residuary legatee of David Lupton, junior, and the defendant was his acting executor. The other executors were David Lupton, the father of the testator, and John McPherson, the father of the plaintiff.

<p>Scire facias, issued 5th February, 1838, returnable to March term, 1838.</p> <p>Mr. Bradley, for the bail, moved to enter an exonerelur on the bail piece, upon payment of the costs of the scire facias, because the principal was discharged under the insolvent act of the District of Columbia, on the 4th Monday of November, 1834.</p> <p>At March term, 1833, Brown became special bail of LeBarron, in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for the county of Washington.</p> <p>At November term, 1833, there was judgment by default against LeBarron, who, being in commitment at the suit of other creditors, was discharged under the insolvent act on the 4tfiMon-day of November, 1834, as before stated.</p> <p>At March term, 1837, final judgment was entered up against LeBarron for $176.35, with interest from the 11th of December, 1832, until paid, and $21.01 costs.</p> <p>for the plaintiff, objected that the plaintiff was*not a resident of the District of Columbia, at the time of the discharge of the defendant Le Barron, who was not then confined at the instance of the plaintiff, but was at large on bail.</p> <p>The Act of Congress of the 6th of May, 1822, [3 Stat. at Large, 682,] entitled “ An Act for the relief of certain insolvent debtors,” has this proviso, “ That no discharge under this act, or the act to which it is amendatory, shall operate against any creditor residing without the limits of the District of Columbia, except the creditor at whose instance the debtor may be confined.”</p> <p>Mr. Bradley, in reply, contended that the defendant, having been arrested, and in the custody of his bail, was thereby confined at the instance of the plaintiff, and therefore his discharge operated against this creditor, as well as against the resident creditors. »</p> <p>And further, that the plaintiff, by bringing suit in the District of Columbia, has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the laws in force here, and cannot be considered as residing out of the limits of the district, within the meaning of the Act of the 6th of May, 1822; and upon this last point he cited the case of Clay v. Smith, 3 Peters, 411 ; Petersdorff on Bail, 490, and Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 364.</p> <p>Where the principal would be entitled to an immediate discharge, if surrendered, the bail are entitled to relief by an ezone-retur without a surrender. Beers v. Haughton, 9 Peters, 330, 355, 358.</p> <p>Mr. Dermott, contrd, cited Harrison & Sterrett v. Boyd, (4 Cranch, C. C. 190.) and Cook v. Fenton, (Id. 200,) in this Court, at May term, Í832.</p>

Error from the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia. The prisoner was indicted for stealing twenty-six silver coins of the value of’ fifty cents each, sixteen silver coins of the value of twenty-five cents each, and nine silver coins of the value of one dollar each, of the goods and chattels of one Sophia Brasey.

The bill in equity in this cause, stated that the plaintiffs, all of Virginia, are the lawful and only children of Catharine Moody, deceased, who intermarried with their father, and who was the only child, next of kin, and heir of James Moody, who, in 1802, died intestate in Fayette county in Kentucky; and that the plaintiffs are his only next of kin and legal heirs and distributees, and that he left no widow.

, on that subject made and provided.” This prosecution is supposed to have been founded upon the by-law of the Corporation of Washington, approved April 1, 1820, entitled “ An Act imposing an annual tax on dogs, and for other purposes, and repealing all other acts on that subject; ” by the first section of which it is enacted, “ that a tax shall be levied and collected, of one dollar each per annum, on all male animals of the dog kind ; and of five dollars each, per annum,…

, on that subject made and provided.” This prosecution was founded on the by-law of the 28th of July, 1831, entitled “ An Act to provide a revenue for the canal fund,” by which it is enacted, “ that from and after the 1st day of August next, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to sell or barter lumber, firewood, or coal; to sell or barter brides; to sell or barter porter, ale, or beer; to keep a livery-stable; or to trade or traffic in slaves, within the limits…

Assumpsit against the payee, indorser of an inland bill drawn at Hampton Roads, January 8, 1837, by A. H. Gillespie on J. W. Reckless,'Perth Amboy, New Jersey, payable to the order of the defendant, Edward Owen, at six months after sight, for $161.88, and indorsed “Edward Owen, by his agent and attorney, P. P. Mayo.” Upon the trial, evidence was given to prove the following facts: That the bill drawn and indorsed as above stated, was by Mr. Mayo, the defendant’s agent,…

CertioraRI, to Mr. Justice Thompson, issued by the Chief Judge of this Court on the 21st March, 1838, in vacation, upon the petition and affidavit of the debtor, B. Homans, which stated, in substance, that W. W. Moore had warranted him, before Mr. Justice Thompson, for $47.20, which, if due at all is due with interest from November, 1834, and that the debt and damages exceed the sum of $50, and the warrant and all proceedings under it are illegal and coram nonjudice.

<p>If the vendee of land, who has paid part of the purchase-money, enters into possession and fails to pay the residue according to the contract of sale, although de-mantled, the vendor cannot maintain ejectment against him without a notice to quit, or a notice that the contract is rescinded, or a demand of payment and notice of rescinding.</p>

Appeal, from the judgment of a justice of the peace against the appellant, who was a free mulatto, for- the penalty of $10, for being out after ten o’clock at night, contrary to a by-law of the corporation. contended that the corporation had no authority to prohibit free persons of color from being out after ten o’clock at night. The charter only gives them power to restrain and prohibit disorderly meetings of free colored persons.

Assumpsit upon the following promissory note: “ $7,400. Georgetown, May 3d, 1832. On demand we jointly and severally promise to pay the President and Directors of the Union Bank of Georgetown, $7,400, with interest from the 1st instant, for value received. James Corcoran.

Ejectment for lot No. 9, in the square No. 687, in the city of Washington. The plaintiff claimed under a demise from the Bank of Washington, and also from Daniel Carroll, of Dud-dington. The plaintiff gave in evidence, 1. A certificate of the original division of the square between the public and Mr. Carroll, by which the lot No. 9 was allotted to him. 2.

Assumpsit upon the defendant’s note, dated May 17,1836, by which 60 days after date he promised to pay to the order of Richard Smith, cashier, &e., $6,063, for value received, payable at the office of the Bank of the United States, at Washington. This note was given in renewal of a note to the plaintiff dated March 15,1836, which was given in renewal of a note to the plaintiff, due November 17, 1835.

<p>In taking a deposition under the 30th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the notice must be given by the magistrate before -whom the deposition is to be taken; a notice given by the party is not sufficient.</p>

Assumpsit against the drawer of sundry checks, payable to bearer, amounting altogether to $465, purchased by the plaintiff for $265, of a broker. These checks were lent by the defendant to W. B. Hart, to ejnable him to raise money upon them for his accommodation.

This was a motion by Remington to order the marshal to pay over to him $69, which he had made under a fieri facias at the suit of Linthicum against Offutt; and the matter was submitted to the Court upon the following case stated. On the 26th of May, 1835, a fieri facias was issued at the suit of Cunningham against Offutt, which came to the hands of the marshal on the next day, and was levied upon a negro boy appraised at $350.

Bill in equity, having a double aspect. 1. To charge the real estate of D. D. Arden, deceased, with payment of debts due to the plaintiffs, “ and such other creditors of D. D. Arden as shall come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit; ” and 2d, to obtain the exclusive benefit of such of the real estate as was purchased by the deceased, with the plaintiffs’ funds, and as their agent; and to obtain a decree for the sale of the whole of the real estate.

. Debt on replevin-bond in the penalty of $3,400, given by J. B. Gorman upon obtaining a writ of replevin, in his own name, for goods distrained by Peter Lenox for rent due by Mrs. Arguelles, upon which writ judgment was rendered for Mr. Lenox, in 1837, upon the pleas of non tenuit, non dimisit, and no rent arrear ; the jury having found the issues for the landlord, and one cent damages, and that the rent arrear was $978.30, and the value of the goods distrained $1,198.

The defendants had a contract with the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company for making culvert No. 116, in section No. 150 ; and the plaintiff, by a written contract under his seal and that of Gilson, one of the defendants, undertook to do the work, by the 4lh of July, 1833, at a less price as to part of the work, and at the contract price- as to the residue. This contract was given in evidence by the plaintiff.

<p>Infants whose property has been sold for taxes due to the Corporation of Washington, have a right to redeem at any time within one year after they have arrived at full age.</p>

Bill in equity to stay a resale of the property sold by the defendant to the plaintiff under a deed of trust from Timothy Caldwell, and to obtain a clear title.

Replevin; avowry for $90 rent arrear, under an indenture of lease from W. Prout to John Chalmers, Jr., dated December 1, 1816, for twenty years, of the whole square, No. 876, in the city of Washington, at $20 a year, clear of “ all taxes, charges, rales, or assessments whatsoever, which may become due on said piece of ground,” with a clause of reentry, “ if the said yearly rent of ¡§20, hereby reserved, or any part thereof, shall be unpaid at the expiration of sixty days…

Assumpsit for use and occupation. To take the case out of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff offered in evidence the defendant’s letter to the Secretary of the Navy, in which he says, “ I could have availed myself of the insolvent laws of the District, but preferred paying all debts as soon as possible, not omitting Mr. Archer’s claim.”

Assumpsit for money paid, laid out, and expended, for the defendant’s use and at his request; to recover one half of the costs of so much of the partition-wall erected by the plaintiff as was used by the defendant in building his house on the adjoining lot.

Ejectment for part of lot No. 153, in Beatty & Hawkins’s Addition to Georgetown. The plaintiff claimed under a sale by the marshal, upon a fieri facias against Z. M. Offult, The defendant claimed under a deed from the said Z. M. OfFutt to James Remington, dated April 18, 1835, and from James Remington to the defendant, dated October 16, 1835.

Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff, as executor of Edward Coursault, to recover from the defendant the sum of $7,864.32 principal, and $304.72 interest, received by the defendant from the Treasury of the United States, for indemnity for French spoliation of the testator’s brig “ Good Friends ” and cargo, confiscated by the French government in 1810.

Slander. The plaintiff had taken a deposition under the Act of Congress, 1789, § 30, [1 Stat. at Large, 73,] before the Mayor of the city of Washington, to be used in this cause, and there being some informality in the certificate of the mayor, Mr. U. J. Brent, for the plaintiff, moved for leave to take the deposition from the files to get the certificate amended according to the truth of the case.

This was an attachment of the goods of Ezra Wilmarth, junior, in the hands of Mr. W. L. Brent, at the suit of William Noyes & Co. The garnishee held them under a deed to him by the defendant to secure a debt said to be due by the defendant to his father. prayed the Court to instruct the jury, in effect, that if they should find the deed to the garnishee to be fraudulent in law as to these plaintiffs, the garnishee is not entitled to retain out of the fund in his hands, a…

Petition for freedom on the ground that the petitioner was brought into Virginia, and kept therein one whole year together, contrary to the 2d section of the Virginia Act of the 17th of December, 1792, (P. P. 186.) This fact was proved by the plaintiff’s evidence.

Habeas CORPUS, to Colonel Henderson, of the marine corps, to bring up the body of William Brown, with the cause of his detention, &e. The colonel returned, “as the cause for the detention of the said William Brown, his enlistment in the United States Marine Corps, according to law, as will appear by the accompanying documents, which the undersigned makes part of his return.” The documents were, 1.

Replevin, for ninety kegs of butter. The case agreed was in substance this. On the 27th of December, 1837, one Saughen-baugh, at Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania, received from the plaintiff’s agent, ninety kegs of butter, weighing 5,738 pounds gross, which he promised in writing to deliver in good order in Georgetown, D. C., to E. Lyons, or order, within sixteen days, he paying to Saughenbaugh $1.75 per 100 pounds carriage, for the same.

Assumpsit by the defendant, as an attorney at law to collect a debt due to the plaintiff’s intestate, and to account for the same when collected. The declaration avers that the defendant collected the money, but refused to pay it to the plaintiff on demand.

This was a bill in equity, claiming an annual dividend upon an unsubscribed claim against the old Potomac company, according to the provisions of the second section of the charter of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, granted, by Virginia, on the 27lh of January, 1824.

This was a special action upon the case, in which the plaintiff, in his declaration, complained, that whereas the House of Representatives of the United States, at the 1st session of the 25th Congress had passed a resolution that their clerk be directed to cause to be printed, a ninth volume of the laws of the United States, after the manner of the 8th volume thereof, in pursuance of which resolution, the then clerk, one Walter S. Franklin, in the year 1838, had, in his…

EeRoe to the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia,1 upon two indictments, both exactly in the same form.

After the Court had arrested the judgment in this cause, and had refused to give the plaintiff leave to amend his declaration, [ante, 439,] it was, by consent, amended by adding a third count. The defendant pleaded in abatement; the plaintiff objected that the plea was not put in upon oath. The defendant had also pleaded non assumpsit, and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff’s counsel, Messrs.

Bill in equity, and general demurrer. The case was argued by Mr. Marbury for the plaintiffs, and Mr. R. S. Coxe for the defendants, at this and the following term. cited Story’s Equity, 436, 447, 477, 487. cited Ram on Assets, &c. 377; Law Library No. 23, p. 249; Davies v. Topp, 2 Br. C. C. 260, note; Story’s Equity, 89; Pulteney v. Warren, 6 Yes. 88.

Ejectment for lot No. 17, in the square No. 634, in the city of Washington. The original declaration was upon the demise of Charles Wilkes only ; was filed on the 7th, and was served on the 30th of September, 1836. Three other counts were, by leave of the Court, filed- on the 9th of April, 1839.

Ejectment for “ a certain piece or parcel of ground in the city of Washington and county aforesaid, and being part of square numbered 906 upon the plan of the said city, beginning for the said part thirty-four feet north from the south-west corner of the said square, at the intersection of L street south, and 7th street east, and running thence on the line of said 7th street east, thirty-five feet north; thence east thirty feet; thence south thirty-five feet; thence west…

Debt on a bond in the penalty of $9,794, dated 18th of April, 1820, conditioned to be void upon the defendant’s paying to the plaintiff one third of the debt due by the defendant’s father to the plaintiff if he himself should not pay the whole debt on or before the 1st of January, 1822.

Debt on the official bon’d of Henry Ashton, late Marshal of the District of Columbia.

Bebt against the defendant as surety in a bond given by Walter Gody, (the father and natural guardian of John W. Gody,) by order of the Orphans’ Court of the county of Washington.

Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, (issued on the 14th of January, 1840,) directed to Thomas N. Davis, commanding him to have before the Court, the bodies of Israel Brinkley, Emanuel Price, and Maria Course, persons of color, with the cause of their detention.

Debt upon a bond for $5,000, given to the plaintiff, as treasurer of the Washington National Monument Society, by John Addison, and the defendant James L. Addison and others, his sureties, with condition that the said John Addison, who had been appointed by that society, collector of contributions in and for the State of Kentucky, should use his best endeavor to collect from all the white inhabitants of that State, such contributions as they should be willing to make for the…

On the 12th of February, 1839, the appellants filed, in the Orphans’ Court, a caveat against the will of Eloysa Mattingly, which was, on that day, offered for probate, by the appellee, Lewis Car-bery, who is named therein as sole executor. The will was dated on the 17th of December, 1838.

This was a bill in equity to set aside certain legacies in the will of Mrs. Mattingly, and for a distribution thereof among her next of kin. The defendant demurred to the bill as to all the legacies therein sought to be vacated, except the legacy of one half of the residue to “ the Georgetown Free School and Orphan Asylum; ” as to which he answered, affirming the existence of the school as a corporate body.

Bill in equity to stay execution on a judgment at law, obtained, it was said, by surprise, in -a case where the judgment was rendered without the actual knowledge of the defendant, or his counsel, in a case in which the defendant had taken a bill of exceptions, and intended to prosecute a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United Slates; and to obtain a supersedeas, after the expiration of the ten days allowed by law.

Bill in equity ; set for hearing by the defendant, at March term, 1839. Certain depositions had been taken.by the complainant under the 30th section of the Judiciary Act of September, 1789, [1 Stat. at Large, 73.] Upon the opening of which in Court, Mr. Jones, the counsel for the defendant Parker, made this memorandum upon the envelop, and filed the same with the depositions, to wit: “Note.

Bill in equity, to charge the separate estate of a feme covert. The defendant, Elizabeth Scott, was the wife of Alexander Scott, who was insolvent, and possessed no estate or property of any kind.

Debt on replevin-bond, for not prosecuting the writ with effect, for not returning the property, and for not paying the costs. The plaintiff, Burch, was a constable, and had taken certain goods in execution to satisfy a debt due by to They were replevied by one Isabella Martin, who, with the defendant and another, executed the bond, in the penalty of $75, for which this suit was brought.

Error, from the Criminal Court of the District of Columbia for the county of Washington, upon a .judgment against the plaintiffs in error, on a joint indictment against them and one William H. Brewster, who was not taken. The indictment had three counts. 1.

Debt on a replevin-bond, in the penalty of $150. moved the Court to order the clerk to extend the judgment in the action of replevin, so as to include a judgment for a return, the verdict having been for the defendant in the action upon the plea of property, with $81 damages.

The jury found the following special verdict: We find that the petitioner is the son of Milly, who was the slave of Miss Brown, who resided in Georgetown about the year 1790 ; and for two or three years afterwards, with her sister Mrs. Magruder. That she afterwards lived with the same sister in Maryland; and after-wards, but not before 1806, with her sister, Mrs. Alexander, in Alexandria county.

Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff. At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that a certain R. Mockbee, being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $>110, made his promissory note dated February 1, 1837, payable to the order of the plaintiff sixty days after date, which note was produced by the plaintiff at the trial.

The petitioners claimed their freedom under a paper purporting to be the last will and testament of Gabriel P. T. Greenfield, of Maryland. The will, upon caveat, had been admitted to probat, by the Orphans’ Court; but the sentence of that court had been reversed in the Court of Appeals.

The bill in equity in this case states that this suit is brought for the use of the United States.

<p>If the appellant from the judgment of a justice of the peace, die pending the appeal, and no further proceedings are had in the cause for two terms thereafter, the sureties in the appeal-bond are not liable for the appellant’s not haying prosecuted his appeal with effect.</p>

An attachment under the Maryland Act of 1795, c. 56, was laid in the hands of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company on the 24th of December, 1839, the defendant, being a non-resident, was attending this Court as a party in another cause.