Volume 5 — New Jersey Law Reports

IN EJECTMENT. THIS cause came up,, on a special verdict, formed at the Cumberland circuit in June 1816; which was quently amended by agreement of parties in May 1817, and presents the following facts.

IN DEBT. This action was brought on a judgment by default, obtained in this court, November term 1813, against the defondants, as surviving executors of Isaac Harris, dec. for 558 dollars, 28 cents, for a debt due from Isaac Harris in his life-time, to the plaintiff, and suggesting a devastavit by the defendants.

IN EJECTMENT. AT the Circuit Court of the county of Gloucester, October term, 1817, the following case was stated by the parties for the opinion of the Supreme Court. 1st. William, Hugg (called William 1st.) being seized in fee-simple, devised the premises in question in the words following, to wit: “I give and devise to my daughter Sarah Ellis, my house and lot of ground and aPPur_ tenances thereunto belonging and therewith usually enjoyed, to hold to her my said daughter…

<p>in case—Motion to amerce the sheriff of Essex county.</p> <p>THE writs of summons, in these cases, were all returned “ not summoned” on the last Tuesday of February 1817. The necessary affidavit that the process could not ;be served, was made and filed ; and the court directed an order for the appearance of the defendants, to be entered upon its minutes at February term 1817, and published pursuant to the third section of the act passed 31st January 1817, for the relief of creditors against corporations. The defendants did not cause their appearance to be entered, and at tiie term of May 1817, the clerk by direction of the court, entered an appearance for them. The causes were regularly put at issue, and at the circuit in Essex, in September 1817, were tried. There was a verdict for Stansbury for 292 dollars, 37 cents, costs 90 dollars, 25 cents ; for Lawrence, for 550 dollars, 28 cents, costs 90 dollars, 38 cents; and for Marsh, for 97 dollars, costs 73 dollars, 60 cents. The whole of these verdicts amounted to 1193 dollars, 88 cents. Judgments were enter*ed on the 11th of November 1817, and executions were issued on the 18th of the same month, and on the same day delivered to the sheriff of Essex, and by him levied on real estate of the defendant, and advertisements for the sale immediately made: several adjournments took place, and the sheriff, at last, altogether refused to sell under the executions. Writs of venditioni exponas were also issued, returnable to May term 1818. The sheriff paid 600 dollars on these executions. '</p> <p>On the 7th of March 1817, the defendant confessed a judgment to Joseph Shotwell for 1013 dollars, 60 cents, and another to John Jacobs and Joseph Shotwell for 5234 dollars, 37 cents, which judgments were recorded in the Essex Pleas as of January term 1817. Executions were issued on these judgments and on the 8th of March 1817, delivered to the same sheriff of Essex; and the said real estate of the defendants’ sold, on the 3rd of October 1817, for the sum of 4200 dollars, subject to prior incumbrances. John F. Ooxe was the purchaser; received a deed from the sheriff, and has since sold to Abijah Weston. The sale, by the sheriff, was subsequent to the trials at the circuit, but previous to the judgments at bar. Coxe and Weston were present at the sale, and had notice that the first mentioned actions were depending, but that no judgments had been entered. The whole property, real and personal, of the defendants, in Essex, was sold under the executions in favour of Jacobs and Shotwell and of Shotwell. The real estate was bound by mortgages to an amount exceeding 11,000 dollars, which has since been paid by the purchaser, Weston, and he has also expended 1500 dollars, in necessary and useful repairs.</p> <p>The sales amounted to 7231 dollars, 75 cents, and the sheriff had dollars, cents, remaining in his hands, after paying the judgments of Shotwell and of Jacobs and Shotwell.</p> <p>The actions by Lawrence, Stansbury, and Marsh were the first which -were commenced against the defendant, and the orders for the appearance of the defendants, in those actions, were the first which were made.</p> <p>Several actions, against the defendant, were brought in the Common Pleas of Essex, and like orders made subsequent to those before mentioned, and judgments by default obtained previous to the time that Stansbury, Lawrence, and Marsh obtained their judgments. Executions on the judgments, in the Common *Pleas, were also issued and put into the sheriff’s hands before those in favour of Stansbury, Lcmrence, and Marsh.</p> <p>The sheriff paid, out of the proceeds of the sales, dollars, cents, on the executions from the Common Pleas of . Essex, in preference to tjnose out of the Supreme Court, on which there is yet due 61 3 dollars, 88 cents, with interest from the 11th of November 1817. He also paid the whole of the judgments in favour of Shot-well and of Jacobs and Shotwell.</p> <p>It was submitted to the court. Whether the first mentioned actions were not a lien upon the real estate of the defendant, from the time of obtaining the orders for appearance in February 1817 ? and whether the judgments confessed in March 1817, could be preferred to those entered in November 1817 ? Whether the judgments by default, in the Common Pleas, are also to be preferred to these last ?</p> <p>If the judgments in the Supreme Court are entitled to priority over all others, then it was agreed, that the sheriff be amerced in the sum of 613 dollars, 18 cents, with interest from the 11th of November 1817. If they have not priority over the judgments confessed to Shotwell and to Jacobs and Shotwell, but have priority over the judgments by default in the Common Pleas, then the sheriff to be amerced in dollars, cents, the sum which he paid on the last mentioned actions.</p>

THIS was a writ of habeas corpus directed to the defendant, commanding him, “that the bodv of Joel 7 07 ^ 7 a minor unci or the age of twenty-one years, m Ins custody, &c. he have before the justices, &c, to undergo and receive what the said justices should consider of and concerning him in that behalf.” To this writ, the defendant returned, that he had tlie body of said Clark, who was a boy about * 13 years and 4 months old, the only son of Joel Clark late of the county of…

<p>not, in the body of it, say that it ^ Proof of the of subscribing witness, is not sumcient to send to the Íiavínginkscroll for a whlch'does wassealed, (a)</p>

<p>Parol evidence admitted to explain ambiguity in lease, and shew what is held under it. (a)</p> <p>Verdict against evidence and the charge of the court.</p>

<p>Verdict not whOTecontrar dictory evithe judge certifies that he is satisfied. Definition of the tary capacity.</p>

THIS cause was tried in the Middlesex circuit, in June terra 1817. The case made out on the trial was this: Benjamin Doughty,. as guardian of Thomas S. Everitt and pfo sjsfer on the loth of February 1813, made a lease of their lands to the plaintiffs for the term of two years fr°m the first of April then next, containing special agreements for particular privileges and duties, (as per lease.) defendant attained his age of 21 years on the 22nd of July 1814.

<p>Insolvent laws of New-York, discharging the debt, unconstitutional.</p>

IN EJECTMENT. THIS case was argued on a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted. The action was tried at the Somerset circuit, in April 1818, and at the succeeding term the following report juj-nnu-íT*was made by the Chief Justice.

<p>Debt due under the timber act. (a )</p> <p>Endorsement on the summons.</p> <p>State of demand. .</p>

<p>St5te.of maud, msurn-</p> <p> 00nceimcT (a) </p>

<p>on certiorari.</p>

<p>ON CEKTIORARI.</p>

ON CERTIORARI. WARD, who was- the defendant below, was an overseer of the highways in the county of Bergen. Folly brought suit against him, and in his state of demand, which is in trespass, complains that the defendant with force &c. entered his close &c. and his post and rail fence then and there standing, did pull, up and throw down, break, destroy, take and carry awray, and other wrongs, &c. to his damage 25 dollars.

oh certiorari. THIS was an action between the same parties for a subsequent trespass. The same facts appeared as in the preceding case, except that the place where the fence was thrown down and the stones and ground dug up and carted away, was altogether beyond the limits of the old and new parts of the road, and upon the premises of the plaintiff.

<p>Verdict not set aside on affidavit of juror who * did nrothathe ¿gree. (a)</p> <p>take timeTo17 consider of his mustgfve parties notice ^ give jndgment. (b)</p> <p>irarty may notlay before countnoT" filed on re-tum day. (c)</p>

<p>^ writing “f¡ balance due, not assigna-</p> <p>t bo in name of (a)</p> <p>creditor writ-bad” will*5 not autkorise holalignment as cas.e of</p>

<p>on certiorari.</p>

<p>Bond to indemnify _ dollars.</p> <p>must be entered for penalty, and justice jurisdiction (a)</p> <p>State of demand.</p> <p>Unlawful evidence.</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>Constable in attach-ting the writ, ant has no property; but not expense of removing fuit^brou'alu against him write?m-UtmS properly, (a)</p>

<p>Bond for may'nofc'be1 S’ assigned be-</p> <p>two miles out breach of bond, though turn°before pursuit, or fiction brought, (a)</p> <p>thereif6 breach, tio^cannoT" recover of tharfpSalty of bond. (b)</p>

<p>Venire may not issue before appearance ¿/defendant ; but if defendant do not appear, P^y/e , dismissed and justice try the cause (a)</p> <p>must be acanTeopy1*'’ ***P«w-ea¿ be read.(b)</p>

<p>Justice may not grant, nor Common Pleas receive appeal, unless bond be legally executed, before first term after judgment, (a)</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>Justice has not jurisdiction, in an action on the case for overflowing land, to the permanent injury of the freehold. (a)</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>State of demand in trover. (a)</p>

<p>on certiorari.</p>

<p>on certiorari.</p>

THIS certiorari, was brought to remove into this court, the proceedings and judgment in an action for forcible detainer, to obtain the possession of a house and lot of land, in the town of Salem. Seven reasons were offered for reversing the judgment. The cause was argued by Orane, Scott and R. Stocldon, for the plaintiff. Jeffers, who was to have argued for the defendant, was ^absent. The reasons with the facts applicable to each, are noticed in the opinion of the court.

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

AT the term of May 1818, Scott, on behalf of the fendant, moved for two writs of certiorari, to be directed to the justices of the Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery of Somerset, to send up two indictments against the defendant; one for the alleged forgery of a deed; the other for the alleged forgery of a ^receipt for the consideration-money mentioned in the deed. The writs were granted; and were returned to November term following.

<p>ON DEMURRER.</p> <p>IN November 181G, Miller commenced an action of trespass against the defendant. The declaration is in the usual form. The first count complains that the defendant, on the loth November 1815, and on divers days, &c. with force and arms, broke and entered a certain close . , . • , i the said Jlenry, situate m the township oí . lewksbury, m the county of Hunterdon, and then and there trampled down, &c. the grass and corn of the plaintiff, &c. and with cattle, &c. trampled down grass and corn, &c. The second count charges that with hoes, &c. she dug, &c. and planted, &c. three hundred yards of fence, over and through the grass and corn of the plaintiff, &c. and with feet and cattle, &c. Third count charges the same as the first, done by her agents and servants. Fourth count same as second, but done by her agents and servants.</p> <p>1st plea was not guilty, and issue. 2nd plea, liberum tenementum, and issue.</p> <p>The 3rd plea in substance, is as follows: that the plain-*ought not to have or maintain his action, because the lands of the said Barnet and Miller joined each other in the said township of Tewksbury, and the said Barnet proposing to make the division or partition fence between them, and they not being able to agree upon the place where the same ought to be placed and made, the said Barnet thereupon, and before the time, when, &c. to wit, on the 23d of October 1815, at said township, according to the form of the statute in such case, made and provided, did apply to Andrew Bartles and Aaron Longstreet, two of the township committee of said township, residing nearest the premises, and being disinterested and indifferent between the said Barnet and Miller; and the said Bartles and Longstreet having met together pursuant to said application, after hearing the allegations and proofs of the said parties according to the form of the statute, &c. by writing under their hands, bearing date the 23d of October 1815, and delivered to each of the parties, did therein and thereby fix and appoint the place where the said division 'or partition fence should or ought to be made, as follows, viz. beginning, &c. (pointing out the courses and distances) and did therein and thereby order and appoint the said Barnet to make and maintain 7 chains, 87 links of the upper end of it, and Miller the same quantity at the lower end. That Miller having neglected to make his just part or proportion of said fence,- Barnet at the said several times when, &c. entered into the close, &c. to make the said partition fence in the place so appointed by Bartles and Longstreet, and did make it conformably to said appointment and pursuant to the statute, and did dig and open the ground and put that fence and no other, and in so doing, did no unnecessary damage, &c. which are the same trespasses, &c. and concludes with a verification, &c.</p> <p>To this 3rd plea Miller replied that he ought not to be barred, &c. because the close mentioned, on the 2nd October 1815, was the close and freehold of Henry Miller, sen. and before the day, &c. viz. on the 15th April 1815, he demised it to the plaintiff for one year, and from year to year so long- as they should please, by virtue of which demise lie entered and was possessed thereof; and further, that on the 2nd October 1815, and for a long time before, there was and had been a partition fence between said close, and the adjoining land of said Barnet, in the plea mentioned, and that the place so fixed and appointed, by *the said Bartles and Longstrreet, where the said division or partition fence should be made, is not the same place where the said fence was and had been, but another and different place; concluding with verification &c.</p> <p>To this replication, the defendant filed a demurrer, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.</p>

ON CERTIORARI. THIS certiorari was returned to the last term, and now Attorney-General applied for a rule on the justice, to certify whether a charge of interest in the plaintiff’s account w'as made before the account was filed, or at the time of entering up judgment, or at what time.

<p>Euletostay waste, not the cutting of is fo'rthe m--’ dinary use of as^utttno’36^.' wood for a furnace. (a)</p>

<p>IN DEBT.</p> <p>LANNING- brought, in the city of New-YorJc, an action against Shute for slander; and obtained verdict and judgment. He then commenced an action of debt, upon the judgment in this court. The defendant, Shute, pleaded. 1. Nul tiel record. 2. Nil debet. Annexed to this second plea, was a notice that he would give the truth of the words in evidence, and also certain circumstances which took place at the time of the trial. The plaintiff demurred, and there was a joinder in demurrer.</p>

<p>on habeas corpus.</p> <p>ON the 23rd of April 1819, Samuel Anderson, as the next friend of Isha Davidson, presented to Justice Southard, a petition, setting forth in substance, that the said Davidson, was in the custody of the defendants, under a pretence of having enlist*ed him, as a soldier in the armies of the United States, on the 8th of January 1819; that he was eighteen years old on the 3rduf April 1819; that he was born of poor parents, and had been bound out to said Anderson as an apprentice, by B. Hendrickson, overseer of the poor of the township of Trenton, by and with the advice and consent of W. Potts and II. M’Neely esqrs., two of the justices of the peace, according to the law of New-Jersey, by indenture, dated the 9th of September 1811; that no consent to the enlistment, was ever obtained from the overseer or justices, or any of them, either before, at, or after the enlistment; that the consent of no one, save that of Davidson’s, into which he was inveigled, was ob-previous to the enlistment. To this petition was annexed, an affidavit of said Anderson, “that the facts stated in the petition, according to the best of his knowle(jge an¿ belief, are true.”</p> <p>Upon this petition and affidavit, Justice Southard, granted a writ of habeas corpus, directed to the defendants. To this writ Col. Brearly returned in substance, that the said Davidson, on the 8th of January 1819, voluntarily enlisted as a soldier in the army of the United States, for the period of five years, unless sooner discharged by proper authority, at the same time representing himself to be aged twenty-one years; that afterwards, on the ‘20th of February 1819, the said Anderson, pretending to be his master, consented to the said enlistment by writing under his hand, testifying his free will and consent that said Davidson his indented apprentice, to enlist in the service of the United States, and that by virtue of such enlistment, he was held &c. nevertheless the body of the said Davidson, he had ready as commanded &c.</p> <p>Annexed to the return, was the original enlistment, in the usual form, and bearing date on the day stated; on the back of it was endorsed. Trenton, N. J. 20th February 1819. I Samuel Anderson, of Nottingham, Bwlington county, N. J. do hereby give my free will and consent for Isha Davidson, an apprentice to me, to enlist into the service of the United States. Signed Samuel Anderson, (seal) Signed and sealed in presence of Robert Lyman, William Cherry.</p> <p>After that return, Anderson filed a reply, protesting that the enlistment was void; and stating that he had forewarned the recuiting sergeant, not to enlist Davidson as he was a minor and his *apprentice; and that afterwards he had been discharged, both by the military officers, and by an order or decree of the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia.</p> <p>On the 3rd of May, the petitioner appeared, and the defendants produced the prisoner. The petitioner, offered in evidence, an indenture of apprenticeship, which was executed in due form of law, and was such as was stated in the petition. He also offered a record, certified according to law, from the District Court of the city and county of Philadelphia, by which it appeared; that on 18th March 1819, before said court, Anderson in behalf of ' ' Davidson, presented a petition setting out, ‘‘that Davidson was deprived of Iris liberty by lieutenant Andrews, com" manding officer of Fort Mifflin, and that without any just or reasonable cause,” and praying for a habeas corpus. And he made oath to the truth of the facts stated in his tion, and that Davidson was not detained for any criminal or supposed crimiual matter, to the best of his knowledge and belief. Whereupon a habeas corpus was ordered and issued, returnable immediately. To this writ lieutenant Andrews returned, that Davidson was sent to that post, on the 20th February 1819, and was detained, in consequence of being an enlisted soldier in the 7th regiment United States’ infantry. The record adds, “and now the 20th day of March, A. D. one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, after hearing, the said Isha Davidson is discharged from Iris enlistment.”</p> <p>It was at the same time agreed by the parties, that Davidson’s age was the same as is stated in the indenture; that in tire month of February last past and before the enlistment, the recruiting sergeant brought him to a surgeon to bo inspected, as a person who was about to enlist; that Anderson, his master, followed and claimed him as his servant; whereupon the surgeon did not inspect nor certify, butiro was immediately dismissed; that after the enlistment, viz. between the 12th and 20th February, Anderson called on lieutenant Lyman, who commanded the recruiting rendezvous, and again claimed him, and requested his dicharge; whereupon lieutenant Lyman did discharge him. That after this, viz. on the 20th February, the master, Anderson, voluntarily returned to the recruiting rendezvous with Davidson, delivered him to lieutenant I/yman, and signed his consent, wdiich is endorsed on the back of the enlistment. After this, (the time *not precisely ascertained,) Davidson left the recruiting rendezvous and was found in his master’s house. Lieutenant Lyman declared to his master, that he would take him as a deserter, and sent men for that purpose; but he also declared that if Davidson was peaceably delivered up, he would produce him, provided the master chose to contest legality of the enlistment and holding'. Whereupon ;he wag delivered to lieutenant Lyman, and this habeas corpus brought. Upon this state of facts appearing, the judgment on the writ was, by the consent of the parties, adjourned, and justice .Southard certified the whole matter the Supreme Court, then about to sit, that judgment thereon might be had, at bar.</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>Commission’tótions without affidavits, motion in court, and notice of the motion, Ule</p> <p>terfn°d'udgen" men£ on ap-</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>If sealed bill “to A. or liis heirs” be assigned, suit must be in name of the assignee, (a)</p> <p>Plea of former judgment.(b)</p>

<p>Appearance and trial beyond fifteen days'(a)</p>

<p>Style of action. (a) Statute of frauds.</p> <p>Consideration of promise. (b)</p> <p>Demand 5( dollars, and trial by six men. (c)</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>Deceit in the transfer of a note (a)</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>ON CERTTORARI.</p>

<p>In covenant against^ vend- or, for lands where payroept was to be in lawful New-Jersey, Pi-aiIe thSTf ter the fore the day" of payment, agreedToreceive bank-when tender-(a)</p>

<p>on certiorari.</p> <p>THE action below was brought by the executors Jacob Shotweli against Elkanah Drake and William Manning, upon a sealed bill, dated 6th July 1814, for 92 lars, with interest, on which some payments were made and credited.</p> <p>_ On the return of the summons the plaintiffs filed their demand, and one of the defendants, Manning, “ denied the demand.”</p> <p>At the trial, after the plaintiffs had rested their evideuce, the defendant, Manning, offered to prove, that was only a security on the bill; that while Drake, the principal, was in good circumstances, and after the note was due and payable, he, (Manning) called on the plaintiffs and fold them that he was only security, and that they must prosecute the bill, or he would stand security no longer. That they did then prosecute the bill before justice Vermvle, when Drake applied to them and offered to pay them 20 dollars, and give them á new note, with other security, payable in one year; that they received 15 dollars from Drake, and agreed to give him further time ; that this was done without the knowledge or consent of said Manning; that since that time, to wit, on the 18th of June 1819, Drake assigned away his property and stopped payment; and that from the time of discontinuing the suit before justice Vermule, to the time of bringing the presentaction, he had paid debts to a considerable amount. *A11 which evidence was overruled and the jury found a verdict, and judgment was rendered against both defendants for 82 dollars and 90 cents.</p>

ON CERTIORARI. REASON'S for reversal, argued by Vanarsdale for the plaintiff. 1. The action was case, the judgment for a 48 dollars, debt. 2. The action should have been debt on the assigned note. 3. The justice refused or neglected to try a challenge to a juror.

IN EJECTMENT. THIS action was tried by a struck jury, at bar, in November term, A. D. 1818, before the Chief Justice and Southard, Rossell J. not sitting. There was verdict f°r defendant. Rule to shew cause why the verdict should not be set aside, was granted at that term, and argument had at February term 1819. At September term 1819, the judgment of the court was pronounced. At the trial R. Stockton was attorney, Wall and R. Stockfon jun., of counsel with the plaintiff.

THERE were two ejectments against the same defend--*-n one> tlie lessor °f the plaintiff resided ont of the state of New-Jersey, and in the other, was an infant. The issues were joined some terms preceding, and the causes were taken down to the circuit, but not tried. After which,

ON CERTIORARI. IT was alleged, that the plaintiff in certiorari had received, from the justice, a transcript upon which the certiorari was brought, but that the transcript, now sent to the court, differed materially from it: whereupon a rule was granted upon the justice; and in return to that rule he certified, that the transcript first given was a true copy of the proceedings in said action, at the time when delivered to the plaintiff in certiorari.

<p>Plea of title verfpi)111 tr°"(a)</p>

on certiorari. THE plaintiff’s demand, in substance, sets forth, that on yie 2nd of February, 1816, he put into the hands of Benjamin R. Wolcott, then a constable, an execution against J°seph Vunlc, for 36 dollars, debt, and 75 cents, costs, which had been issued by Halsted Wainwright, esq.; that Wolcott received the money, but did not pay it over to the plaintiff; that he had left the state; that Lewis, the defendant, had placed himself in his situation, by being his…

<p>General judgment against administrator. General judgment against administrator. (a)</p> <p>to revive judgment.</p> <p>Rule of reference.</p> <p>Uniting private accounts with accounts as administrator. (b)</p>

IN EJECTMENT. THIS action was brought for the recovery of a farm, in the county of Salem, mentioned in the will of James Mason, as the Thompson farm. The case came before the court, upon a special verdict, found at the Salem circuit, in December, 1817, which stated the following facts : 1.

<p>Buie to stay waste in er' (a)</p>

THIS cause was commenced by capias ad respondendum, served on defendant, one of the attorneys and counsellors of this court.

<p>RETAXATION OF COSTS. FEES OF WITNESSES.</p>

THE judgment of the justice having been reversed, m°ved for leave to take from the files, the sealed bill given by Carhart to Miller, and on which the action was brought.

<p>Who must juRticeUto°n amend,(a) ^</p>

THIS case came before the court, at November, 1819, on a rule to shew cause, why the verdict, taken before Justice Southard, at the Somerset circuit, in April, 1818, should not be set aside. _ _ Upon argument and motion, in open court, a special scire facias, under the statute, was issued, returnable to February term, 1817.

<p>IN ERROR.</p> <p>THIS cause was tried at January term, 1819, arid a bill of exceptions taken by the defendant, in proper person, The declaration was in the usual form, upon a promissory note, dated 2nd September, 1811. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The bill of exceptions states, that “ the. plaintiffs offered in evidence, a promissory note, and proved the execution of the same, by the subscribing witnesses thereto. The defendant objected to the said evidence.” The court admitted it; the note was read the jury; and the bill of exceptions taken and sealed. The note accompanied the return of the writ, and by it, it appeared that the word first, in the date had been erased, and the word second, written over it; and that several payments had, at different times, been made by defendant upon it.</p>

in CASE. THIS was a writ of error to the Court of Common pleas Essex. The cause was tried there in January, 1819. The plaintiffs produced, proved, and read in evidence, a bfu 0f sale, dated the 6th of November, 1816, from one . . . Elijah Day, to them, with an inventory of certain goods thereto annexed, being'the goods stated in the declaration.

AN indictment, for forgery, was found against the defendant, in the Oyer and Terminer of Essex county, at September sessions 1813. At April 1814, the defendant not guilty, and before trial was had, a certiorari was presented, to remove the indictment to this court. When the writ was returned, Halsey, for defendant, prayed leave to withdraw his plea of not guilty, that he might move to quash the indictment.

IN ERROR. THIS case was presented to the court at November term, The action was covenant, founded on two deeds, for certain lots of ground in the city of Jersey. In which deeds there is a reservation of rent, to be paid by the defend ant, to the said associates and their successors ; and a covenant, on the part of the defendant, to pay the said rent at the days and times therein specified.

in DEBT. PLAINTIFF declared against the defendant, in debt, on a sealed bill, in the usual form of declarations. Defendant prayed oyer of the sealed bill; which was given , m these words : “ I, Seneca Sinnickson, am hereby bound to Benjamin Sterling, for the sum of one thousand dollars, provided he is not lawfully married, in the course of six months from the date hereof. Witness my hand and seal. Burlington, May 16th, 1816. “ Witness, Jas. S. Budd.

IN ERROR. THIS action was brought in the Common Pleas of Middlesex, and verdict and judgment given for defendant. Two bills of exception were taken at the trial, and writ of error brought,- removing the cause to this court. The facts of the case are very accurately stated, in the opinions which were pronounced. Scudder argued for plaintiffs in error, at September term, 1819.

MOTION to quash indictment, for perjury upon an application for the benefit of the insolvent laws: found in the Oyer and Terminer of Essex, at September term 1816. It was removed here by certiorari, and argued at term, by Scudder and Halsey, for defendant; and General, for the State. The objections to the indictment, are shortly stated in the opinion of the court, by

BURROUGHS commenced an action for a trespass, , . e 1 t i • -Lx , 1 upon a very narrow strip of land, lying between the farms of the parties, which had long been the subject expensive litigation, between them. They then entered into an arbitration bond, and agreed, to make their mission, a rule of court.

in DEBT. THE declaration sets out a judgment in the Supreme Court of the state of New- York, in an action of slander, for $1986.69 ; that it still remains in force, not satisfied or vacated; whereby an action accrued, &c. The defendant pleaded, first, nul tiel record; secondly, nil debet, and annexed to it a notice of various particulars, which he should prove under it. Upon the first plea, issue was joined. To the second, the plaintiff filed a demurrer.

<p>Suit on contract to dig well for $80. (a)Rrfugal to nonsuit as^ne^for er(b)</p>

<p>in case.</p> <p>THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error, ^ie Common Pleas of Burlington, which brought up three bills of exceptions. The first, then, because the cour^ did not nonsuit the plaintiff. The second, because the court did not charge as defendant requested. The third, because the court would not charge at all, when requested. The suit was commenced on the 6th of April Ewing, attorney of plaintiff in error. Neale, attorney of defendant.</p> <p>*The declaration sets out, that 8. W. Blackwood, on the December 1813, made a note to Estell to pay him, or order, ten days after date, $111.49 ; that Estell endorsed it, on the same day, to Vanderveer, of which endorsement Blackwood had notice, on the same day; and avers that after ten days, viz. on the 1st of January 1814, he presented the note to Blackwood for payment, but he refused, of which Estell, the same day, had notice.</p> <p>The second count, of the declaration is for $111.49, for money had and received ; damages laid at $300. There was verdict and judgment for $136.17.</p> <p>The note was read to the jury, without objection, in the following words : “ Evesham, 6 Dec. 1813. Ten days after date, I promise to pay the order of Daniel E. Estell, one hundred and eleven dollars, forty-nine cents, without defalcation, value received. Samuel W. Blackwood.” Endorsed, “ Pay the within note to David Vanderveer. Daniel E. Estell.” After which Blackwood was sworn, and testified, that he gave the note, for money due to Estell, and had never paid it. He became embarrassed in 1814, and could not pay his debts, or this note, at the middle of March, in that year. lie had been a merchant, and sold his store in December 1818, and paid some debts after that ■ time ; and held out to his creditors, that he could pay ; and it was not known to them or the public, that he could not. He was not insolvent when the note became due, but was afterwards put in confinement, upon a suit on it, and took the benefit of the insolvent laws in May 1815. After it became due, Estell asked him for the money, and said, he had the note, but did not shew it; he expected to collect some outstanding debts, and promised to pay Estell, about the 25th of March. Soon after this, Vanderveer wrote to him, that he had the note; and in the latter part of January 1814, Vanderveer demanded payment. As much as twenty days after this, he called on Estell, told him he was unable to pay, and asked for time to pay; and Estell said he had no doubt but Vanderveer would wait, and made no objection to his waiting. Estell lives in Philadelphia; Vanderveer in Moore’s- Town, nine miles from Philadelphia; Blackwood, in Evesham, four miles from Moore’s- Town, and twelve from Philadelphia.</p> <p>After the plaintiff rested, the defendant demanded a nonsuit, which was refused. He then prayed a charge, that the plaintiff *had not proved the exercise of due and-legal diligence, and that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize a recovery: which charge, the court refused to give. He then prayed a charge as the court apprehended the law to be ; which was refused. These several opinions of the court, and the alleged defects of the declaration, were the reasons assigned for the reversal of the j udgment.</p>

IN DEBT. THIS case was brought up by agreement, and submit-without argument. There was a prosecution upon a constable’s bond, in the penalty of $10,000, and judgment entered upon it in August, 1815, and execution issued, and the money made, amounting to $51.78.

IN ERROR. FROM the return of the writ of error, the following case appears. Joseph Willson, the plaintiff below, brought hjg action of account render in “ Gloucester Inferior Court of Common Pleas,” by writ, returnable to March 1816.

in CASE. TRIAL, before Justice Southard, at the Sussex circuit, in 1818. Rule to shew cause why a new trial be not granted, at February ; and argued at September, 1819. The acti°n was brought against the defendant, sheriff of the county of Sussex, for making a false return, and n°t making and paying the money, upon an execution, in favour of the present plaintiffs, against Jacob Kerr.

<p> Scirefadas. (a) </p>

<p>Withdraw-cause noticed (b)</p>

<p>ON CEBTIOBABI.</p>

<p>Sealing bail (a)</p> <p>Witness (b)Appearance unte6baiint bond, (c)</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p> <p>FOR case, see opinion.</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

ON CERTIORARI. THE facts, sufficiently appear in the opinions. Ewing, for plaintiff, relied on two reasons. 1. The insufficiency of the state of demand. 2. That the transcript did not state, that the plaintiff appeared when the verdict was rendered: it merely stated, that the plaintiff was called.

on certiorari. THE case is stated in the opinion. The reasons relied on for reversal were. 1. That defendant was not liable f°r ^ie injury> because the oxen which did it, though in his care and management, were not his property. 2. That justice refused to give a legal charge to the jury, when requested.

<p>Presumption nejr is author-. ized to bring suit in the name of plaintiff, tlie be shewn, (a)</p> <p>Style of action.</p> <p>Copy of account.</p>

<p>Judgment neoessaiTín forcible (a)</p> <p>Suit against hoIdTn severalty. (b)</p>

<p>THE action was on a promissory note, against endorser. The state of demand alleged the assignment to be made after the day of payment; and that the defendant made a special promise to pay, if the money could not be got of the drawer. The case was argued by Vroom, for plaintiff, and Halsey, for defendant.</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>Judgment share,</p> <p>Orphans’ 90urí .or' distnhution.(b)</p>

<p>Action by bein^wented from takinSexecution (a) Evidence</p>

<p>Misconduct of jury, (a)</p>

<p>ON CERTIORARI.</p>

<p>Agent not answerable in capacity, (a)</p>

on certiorari. THIS case was presented, without argument, to the court, at a former term ; and the Chief Justice intimated the opinion to be against the judgment. On which, the counsel of the defendant in cert., Wall and R. Stockton, . . _ TTr.77 , ’ laid Wittes 210, and some other cases before the court, suggesting, that they conclusively sustained the legality of the report. The facts are stated in the opinion delivered.

AT February term 1818 ; on motion and argument by White and L. If. Stockton, for prosecutor, and by Fwing and Woodruff, against the allowance of the writ; a certiorari was issued, to bring up the tax warrant against delinquents, in military service, in 1817, in the battaliont0 commanded by major Baxter, in Gloucester. By the turn of the writ, the original warrant and list of quents, upon the same paper, were brought up.

IN CASE. THIS was an action on the case, for overflowing lands, tried before the Chief Justice, at the Essex circuit, in September, 1819.

ON CERTIQRARI. THIS was an action of forcible entry and detainer, The complaint sets out, that Murray and others, the below, trustees of the people of colour, belonging to the miethodist society at Snowhill, on the 1st June 1818, at the township of Newtown, in the county of Glouwere possessed of a certain meeting-house and lot containing two acres, there situate, and that BaiiJcs and the others, on the said 1st June, at &c., did enter into and upon the said meeting-house and…

At the next term of the court, the caveator applied for a rule, to shew cause, why the should not beset aside, upon the following reasong. That two of the surveyors, had not taken the oath required by law. 2. That the surveyors did not pursue the courses and distances in the application.

AT the circuit in Salem, November 1819, this cause was tried before Justice Rossell. After the- plaintiff had closed his evidence, the defendant moved, that he be nonsuited; at the time, when the demise was laid, the lessor was a marr*e On the coming in of the postea, rule to shew cause for a new trial was granted, and notice was given by the plaintiff to defendant, that the court would be for leave to amend the time in the demise.