Volume 8 — Johnson's New York Reports

THIS was an action of assumpsit brought for a re-4 ° turn olpremium^ on a policy of insurance, underwritten by the defendants for the plaintiff, dated the 21st of December, 1808, upon goods, being tin in boxes, on board of the ship Thomas, “ at and from Bristol to New-York,” valued at 9,130 dollars.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts. 1. That the defendant, being in-7 ° debted to the plaintiff for 200 dollars, collected and re-1 7 ceived by the defendant, on a fieri facias issued out of _ _ ' . . , this court, at the suit of the plaintiff, against the goods . and chattels or John Pierce, tested, ike. on a judgment, &c. and being so indebted, the defendant assumed and promised, &c. 2.

<p>To maintain an deceit’ on a pai ^ gg^to^the sensibility of*® ‘j*ird person, the eesesoaaí must prove actual fraud in the or an intention in the defendant to de- * fv him by false representations. Deceit is the gist of the action; and though the advice ;,ive5i be rash and indiscreet, yet if there is no ground to infeT an intent to deceive, it will support the action.</p>

THIS was an action of debt on a recognisance of bail, brought against the defendant, as administrator of Stephen Forman, deceased. The cause was tried at the Greene circuit, the 6th December, 1809, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the usual money counts, the common counts for goods sold and delivered, a count upon a promissory note, and a special count on the following instrument in writing : “ November 9, 1808. For value received, I promise to pay Norman Leonard five hundred dollars, in r J • sixty days from date, per me, Moses Johnson. “ I guaranty the above. Win. I. Vredenburgh.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Ontario county. This was an action of debt for the penalty of 250 dollars, given by the 6th section of the act concerning slaves and servants, passed the 8th of April, 1801, (24th sess. c. 188.) The declaration stated that the defendant took, imprisoned, and carried away, a black man, named Bazil Baker, being a slave, and kept him in irons, during three days, with the intent to export him out of the state; and that the defendant…

THIS was an action of trespass, assault and battery, 1 ' J ° an¿ false imprisonment. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the Seneca circuit, the 20th June, 1810.

T HIS was an action of trespass, against the defend- . . . _ ant, late sheriff or Ontario, tor taking, carrying away and disposing of 73 barrels of whiskey, &c. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice °f 3 justification.

THIS was an action or debt, to recover the amount of three sealed notes, dated the 14th of February, 1798, ' and payable before the 28th June, 1806. The defendants pleaded; 1- Nonest factum; 2. Payment; 3. A release on .he 28th June, 1806. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the Ontario circuit, the 25th of June, 1810.

THIS was an action of ejectment, to recover 18 acres ©f land in the village of Ballston. The cause was tried at the Saratoga circuit, in May, 1810, before Mr. Justice Van Ness.

THIS was an action of. slander. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was an attorney and counsellor at law, and conducted himselt with great tairness, skill and integrity, &c. and had been' employed by E. Wilson an The j'ury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, a motion was made in arrest of judgment.

IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of r Montgomery county. Peake brought an action of trespass against Wood, m - r , . , . -cv the court below, tor taking and carrying away, m January, 1809, two horses belonging to the plaintiff beloxv.

IN error, on certiorari. from a justice’s court. .The re-7 7 . J turn stated, that Barney sued Blake before the justice, ' v v and declared for goods sold to 311 97. The defendant , . , plead non assumpsit; and there was atrial by jury, lhe plaintiff proved the sale and delivery of the goods to the zvtfe Baker] on the 7th January, 1809, and his clerk Proved that the common report, at that time, was, that Baker did not live with his wife.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Rensselaer county. The defendant in error brought an action slander against the plaintiff in error, in the court be-^ow’ f°r speaking the following words: u Tina Miller has stolen my watch, and Pollif Miller (meaning the . \ K 6 plaintiff below) has concealed it for her.

THE facts of this case were the same as in the preceding cause. The proof was, that the defendant had . . said, “ that his watch had been stolen at the widow Millev's, and that he had reason to believe that Tina Mdler had taken it.”

THIS was an action of scire facias to revive a-iudgJ jo ment in debt for 500 dollars, and 14 dollars and 43 . ' . cents, costs.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of On- . Ait i si . i ii • iarzo county. Arnold sued Crane in the court below, in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the usual r counts for money lent, money paid, &c. and money had and received, &c. and an insimul computassent. Plea, non assumpsit, with notice.

THIS was an action of debt on a recognisance of bail. . ° The defendant pleaded nil debet, with notice that he should give in evidence at the trial, that the defendants in the original action had fully paid and satisfied to the plaintiff the amount of the judgment, &c. To this plea there was a demurrer and joinder in demurrer.

THIS was an action of debt, on a bond for the penal sum 4,000 dollars, dated January 1st, 1808. -^e defendants pleaded the general issue and usury, with notice, The cause was tried at the Dutchess circuit in Septem1 hev^ 1810, before the Chief Justice* To prove the usury, E. Brush testified, that he was *n the office of the defendant, L Brush, about 9 o’clock ™ ^le evening of the 31st January, 1810, in bed, when the plaintiff and I Brush came in and conversed together x e u…

THIS was an action of debt, on a judgment obtained in the court of common pleas of Addison county, in the state of Vermont.

THIS was an action of assupnpsit. The declaration was for goods sold and delivered, to wit, 300 bushels of salt, and 16 tons of plaster of Paris. Plea non assump7 1 ** i \ The cause was tried at the Columbia circuit, in September, 1810, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The defendant admitted the whole of the plaintiff’s account, amounting to 442 dollars and 40 cents.

' THIS was an action of trover, for three horses and a chair. The cause was tried at the Columbia circuit, in September, 1810, before Mr. Justice Thompson.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the P^a'rat'1®'i as endorsee of a promissory note, for 500 dol - lars, against the defendants, as makers, dated 29th May, ° 1807, payable to Henry Pitcher or order, on the 1st May, 1809. There was a blank endorsement s6o. the payee, and by Isaac Spoor, which endorsement was made before the note became due. The cause was triec[ at tjie Columbia circuit, in September, 1810, before ^ •* Mr. Justice Thompson. .

THIS was an action of ejectment, for eight-thirteenths of a farm, in Chatham, in the county of Columbia. The cause was tried at the Columbia circuit, in September, 1810, before Mr. Justice Thompson.

THIS was an action of dower, brought by the demand-ant to recover her right of dower, as the widow of John . . ¡¡ogle, in 110 acres of land, situate in the town of Cambridge, in the county of Washington. The writ was returnable in November term, 1808. The demandant was married to John Hogle, some time before the commencement of the late war between this country and Great Britain.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Essex county. This was an action of slander. The declaration contained six counts.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Ulster county. The declaration in the court below was in debt, for 54 dollars and 33 cents, on a bond dated the 18th September, 1807, given for the gaol liberties granted to Smith, 7 7 0 ° 0 e one of the defendants below, who was committed to „ . gaol on three executions, issued by a justice of the peace, amounting in the whole, with the officer’s fees for poundage, &c. endorsed thereon, to 27 dollars and 16 1-2 cents.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration . J contained a count for 60 shares of stock in the bank -of Hudson, sold and delivered, for 1,000 dollars; and a quantum valebant thereon.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. At the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence the following writing, signed by the defendants: “ Messrs. Rogers Lambert, if Elias Warner and D. W. Bostwick, our sons, wish to take goods of you on credit, we are willing to lend our names ° J 1 ° as security for any amount they may wish. Canaan, Matt ,, . .

THIS was an action <y§-hs&itnpsit. The declaration . , . '.tiaÉsfíi'V ,1 , r , was on a promissory note, flMRby the defendant, on t^le 18t^ May, 1809, by whichflffe defendant, “ as admin^strator °f Peter Bregau, deceased, promised to pay the plaintiffs 61 dollars and 72 cents, for value received, by John Bregan and heirs, on demand, with lawful interest until paid.” There was a demurrer to thé declaration and joinder in demurrer, which was submitted to the court, without…

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The action was founded on a written contract, to the execution of which there were two subscribing witnesses, who were the sons of the defendant.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff’s demand was for 25 dollars and 93 cents, and the defendant, who is an attorney of this court, had a set-off of 20 dollars and 25 cents, which was disputed by the plaintiff. The bill was filed against the defendant in November term, 1809, and the cause was tried in Rensselaer county, when the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for 5 dollars and 68 cents.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, dated \7tb. June, 1808, by which the defendant promised to pay the plaintiff 111 dollars and 53 cents, m one year from the date. I1 appeared that the plaintiff, at the time the note was given, declared to the defendant, that there had been a mistake in the settlement of accounts between them, about four years before, of 84 dollars, in favour of the J „ defendant.

THIS was an action of debt on an arbitration bond. Plea, no award. Replication, that the arbitrators took upon themselves the burden of the award, and met together, and were willing to award, but the defendant delivered a countermand or revocation of the submission, in writing, under his hand, dated the 16th September, 1807'.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration was on a promissory note made by Moses Craig, deceased, anc* f°r goods sold and delivered, and for the use and occupation of land.

THIS was an action of ejectment. The cause was J tried at the Essex circuit, before Mr. Justice Van Ness, ’ J ’ the 15th January, 1811. The plaintiff produced in evidence a patent for 2,000 1 _ 1 acres of land, in Boquett, from the king of Great Britain, , ... dated 16th April, 1765, to James Ross, and an exemplmcation of a deed for the same land from Ross to William Wilson and John Goodrich, in fee, dated 10th August, * 765; recorded in the secretary’s office.

THIS was an action of ejectment, to recover the possession of lot No. 30. in the town of Dry den, in Cayuga county. The cause was tried befóle Mr. Chief Justice Kent, at the Cayuga circuit, the 12th June, 1810.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried before Mr. ... i .. Justice Spencer, at the Schenectady, circuit, the 24th October, 1810, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, , . , .... . r ,, . subject to the opinion or tue court, on the following case Ebenezer Harris, who died seised of the premises’in ■ question, by his last will, dated the 12th March, 1800, devised as follows : “ as touching such worldly estate, wherewith it has pleased God to bless me in this life, I…

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant before the justice, to recover the price of two firkins of butter, delivered to the defendant, and for which he gave a receipt to the plaintiff “ to account with him for the same; that is, if Jonas Platt, Esq. is elected governor of the state, the defendant is to pay 39 cents per pound for the butter, and if not, he is to pay nothing.” The justice gave judgment for the…

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Rath* bone sued Holly before a justice, and in his declaration stated, that Holly was one of the overseers of the poor Camden, and, as such, has received certain moneys of Elizabeth Potter, a pauper of that town, and expected to receive more moneys which belonged to the pauper, and ~ ° . r r ' that in consideration thereof, he promised to pay to the . , . . - plaintiff a certain debt due from Elizabeth Potter to the plaintiff;…

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiff below brought an action against the defendant below, before the justice, and demanded six dollars and sfeven cents, on account. It appeared that Betsey Thorpe, having given a note to the plaintiff for six dollars and seven cents, afterwards married the defendant, and that the present suit was brought for the same debt.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Go mi sued Chestne'y before the justice, in debt for 5 dollars, for exacting toll, as a toll-gatherer, at the toll-gate, on the first great western turnpike, when the plaintiff was going to and returning from a grist mill, for the purpose of having his grain ground.

<p>IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Schenck brought an action of trespass against Bradish, before the justice, for damage done by the hogs of the defendant, by breaking into the enclosure of the plaintiff, and destraying his corn, &c. And the plaintiff produced the certificate of the fence-viewers, appraising- the damage, pursuant to the act, (24th sess. c. 78. s. 16.) at 7 dollars, The defendant pleaded, that the plaiAtiffliad distrained the hogs, and impounded them before the commencement of the suit; and that the plaintiff was not in possession of che land on which the trespass was alleged to have been committed.</p> <p>It was proved that one Curtiss took the land of the plaintiff, and planted it with corn, upon shares. The hogs of the defendant were twice driven out of the field, and were afterwards impounded by the plaintiff, and about five days thereafter replevied. The action of replevin, grounded on the original distress damagefeasant, was withdrawn soon after it was commenced^ but it did not appear why it was withdrawn, or whether it was settled before the commencement of the action of trespass. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, on, which the justice gave judgment.</p>

<p>Inan action of as. ¡>umj,sit, brought by A. against />. the defendant may set off a ooiid given by Jl. to C. and assigned by C. to B. before the commencement of the suit,"</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Bogardus, the defendant in error, sued Brush before the justice, for two dollars of debt. The defendant pleaded nil debet; and there was a trial by jury. Brush was president of a court martial held at Poughkeepsie, the 24th October, 1810, and exacted from Bogardus a fine of two dollars, for his non-attendance at the battalion or regimental parade, on the 15th of September, 1810.

THIS action was brought to recover the value of artides furnished xby the plaintiffs, who were ship-chand- , r i • /-t lers, for the brig Ceres. The brig arrived from a voyage, the 17th November, 1807. Being in want of ship-chandlery, the plaintiffs supplied the articles, from time to time, on the order of Charles Dayton, the master.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on the schooner Lucy, at and from New-York to a port in North ’ 1 Carolina, and at and from thence to Port Antonio, and Annoito Bay, in yamaica, valued at 3,000 dollars.

<p>and lus wife, ted a mortgage in fee, of the land of the wife, afterwards^ hi consideration1'!)! 125 . pounds, granted and released the premises to B. the mortgagee, his heirs and assigns, for ever; and B. retained the mortgage in his hands, and anadean endorsement thereon, by which he covenanted not to bring any action against Jl. or his for*1 the'^money gage”" aiM^dekept on foot, merely to proteet the title of ,B. and his heirs in the premises,</p> <p>cjectmenh'bro’t agu'mk"!! person ckiming^under that the covenant endorsed on the mortgage tion or discharge hi law'or equity’; n-a^e íeing1 unredeemed, the title under it, set up by the defendant claiming under JE?., was a good and valid defence.</p> <p>Whether the mortgage is now redeemable, or not, is a question for the court of chancery to decide.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a judgment ob- • 1 r nr t r tained against the defendant, m the state of Maryland, as _ endorsor of a bill of exchange. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Thompson, at the last April sittings, in New-York. The plaintiff produced in evidence a regularly certified copv of the judgment recovered against the defendant, in Maryland, as endorsor of a bill of exchange.

BALDWIN, for the defendant, moved for an impar- „ ... , - . lance, m this cause, until the first day of next August term, and from term to term, until the libel filed by the attorney of the United States, for the district of New-Tork, in the district court, against the ship American Eagle, shall have been heard and finally determined.

<p>THIS was an action on the case, for a false return. The declaration stated, that a judgment was obtained in . . February, 1$09, m favour of the plaintiff, against /?. B. on which a fi.fa.. was issued, returnable the 25th of November, 1809, and delivered to the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Ontario, on the 14th of November. That the defendant had not the moneys, as he was direct-v ed, &c. but falsely, maliciously, and deceitfully re- *' turned on the fi.fa. that he could find no goods or chattels, lands or tenements of the said R. B. in his bailiwick, &c. Plea, the general issue. The cause was tried at the Ontario circuit, on the 26tíj)of June, 1810, before the Chief Justice. . v v</p> <p>On the fieri facias which was given in evidence, the defendant had endorsed a return of nulla bona, It was proved, that after the delivery o.f the writ, and before the return-day thereof, the defendant had levied on & negro boy, said tobe a slave of R. B. the defendant named in the execution, who brought the negro into this state in 1803, when he removed into Ontario county from the state of Maryland; and had filed in the proper office, the affidavit and certificate required by law jn such case. It was proved that R. B. had claimed the ne1 gro as his slave. The plaintiff gavenotice to the defendant, that the negro was the property of R. B. and offered to-indemnify the defendant if he would sell the negro ; and protested against a trial of the question of property by a jury, as the slave was not claimed by any other person. The offer of indemnity was verbal, and not accompanied with a tender of any written security or bond. The defendant summoned a jury to inquire into the fact of property; and by an inquisition taken the 20th of December, 1809, in the usual form, the jury found that the negro was not, in fact, the property of R. B.</p> <p>The plaintiff’s attorney attended before the jury of inquiry ; no person appeared to claim th¡e negro, and the only question submitted to the jury was, whether the. negro had not become entitled to his freedom, under, the act relative to slaves and servants. (Sess. 24. c. 188.)</p> <p>It was proved that when R, B. left the county of Ontario, the plaintiff, as his agent, let the farm of R. B. to another person, with the negro, who laboured on the farm, in the service of the lessee, for onp year and nine months, and had afterwards been seen in the service of other persons, some years after R. B. had left the county; and that before the delivery of the execution to the defendant, he had hired himself out to labour, and had been at large, in different parts of the county.</p> <p>The Chief Justice charged the jury, that the inquisition was conclusive in favour of the defendant, unless the plaintiff proved that the defendant had acted dishonestly and fraudulently; and that to entitle the plaintiff to recover, he mqst not only show that the return was false, but that the defendant knowingly, wilfully, and deceitfully, made such false return; and that it was for the jury to decide whether the defendant had acted iim partially and with good faith, in taking the 'inquisitions The jury found a verdict for the defendant.</p> <p>A motion was made to set aside the verdict, as against evidence, and for the misdirection of the judge.</p>

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration, , . ’ , besides the usual money counts, contained a count on a promissory note, as follows : “ I promise to pay Capri Samuel Thompson, eighty dollars, for value received. Montego Bay, April 21, 1807.” Plea, general issue, with notice that infancy would be. given in evidence at the trial.

THIS was an action of debt on a judgment obtained ^ s£ate Vermont. , From an authenticated copy 0f the record of the proceedings in Vermont, it appeared, that Ramsdall, in September, 1803, brought an action in ’ 1 . the county court of Addison county, against Seth Gar-as trustee of Samuel Garlick, an absconding or concealed debtor, for 77 dollars and 15 cents, of debt, on a judgment obtained by Ramsdall against Samuel Garlick, in March, 1803, alleging that Seth Garlick had…

THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration stated that the defendant, by his deed, dated the 13th of January, 1807,. covenanted with the plaintiff to indemnify and s.ave hicn harmless from all demands, dues or damages whatsoever; which should or might happen or arise to him, for or on account of a mortgage executed by one Julius Shaw'to ,one John White, for the whole of the western quarter of lot JNo. 41. in Springfield.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant. The cause was tried at New-York sittings in December, 1809, before Mr. Justice Yates. J The plaintiffs and defendants in 1803 and 1804, were, . . . ' respectively, partners in trade.

THIS was a special action on the case brought by the 7, plaintiffs, as executors of Dama Rhea, deceased, late she- * riff of the county of Ulster, against the defendant, as gaoler, for voluntarily suffering a prisoner, in custody on a ca. sa. to escape.

IN error, On certiorari, from a justice’s court. Potter, as administrator, brought an action against Case, before the justice, for ten dollars, money lent to him by the in- - - — - testate in his life-time. The cause was tried before a jury, and the plaintiff below produced the original book of accounts kept by the . . , . . , intestate, containing the original entry (m the hand-writing of the intestate) of ten dollars, lent to the defendant below, being a Hudson bank note.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a bill of lading, signed by the defendant, as master of a ship. The cause was tried at the sittings in New-York, before the W- . justice• . The goods were shipped at Liverpool, in good order, consigned to the plaintiff.

<p>THIS was an action of debt, brought by the plaintiff, as a common informer, on the second section of the act for usury. (Sess. 10. c. 13.)</p> <p>The declaration was as follows:</p> <p>e Albany county, to wit: John Morrell, who sues as well for the poor of the city of Schenectady, as for himself, complains of Jeremiah Fuller, in custody, &c. pf a plea, foat he render to him the said John, and to the said poor, 92 dollars, 8 cents and S mills, of lawful' money of the state of New-York, which he owes to and unjustly detains from them; for that whereas the said Jeremiah Fuller, after the 8th of February, 1787, to wit, on the 6th of August, 1808, was indebted to one Thomas Morrell, now deceased, in the sum of ninety-two dollars, eight cents and five mills, whereby an action had accrued to the said Thomas Morrell, by force of and according to the statute in such case made and provided, entitled, an act for preventing usury, passed the 8th February, 1787? to demand and have of the said Jeremiah, the said sum of 92 dollars, 8 cents and 5 mills, of lawful money as aforesaid; and the said John avers, that neither he the said Thomas, or his executors or administrators, hath not, nor hath either of them, within one year after tfe said 6th of August, 1808, in any wise prosecuted the said Jeremiah, for the recovery of the said sum of 92 dollars, 8 cents and 5 mills, and so the said John Morrell, who sues as well, &c. says, that the said Jeremiah, on the ninth day of August, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and nine, at the city of Albany aforesaid, in the county of Albany aforesaid, was indebted to the said John Morrell, and to the said poor, in the said sum of 92 dollars, 8 cents and 5 mills, of lawful money as aforesaid, whereby an action hath accrued to the said John Morrell, who sues as. aforesaid, to demand and have of the said Jeremiah, Fuller, for himself and the poor of the city aforesaid; the said sum of 92 dollars, 8 cents ánd 5 mills, of lawful money as aforesaid, according to the form of the act aforesaid, entitled, an act for preventing usury; yet the said Jeremiah, although often requested, &c.</p> <p>A verdict having been found for the plaintiff, a motion was made in arrest of judgment.</p> <p>The same cause ivas before the court, in February term last; (see vol. 7. p. 402.) but the point oh Which it Was now decided was not then considered by the court.</p>

THIS was a aui tain action, for 1,000 dollars, of debt, i ’ ’ ■> i to recover four penalties, of 250 dollars each, on the act to 1 punish… Held: and that the defendant knew it; that there were several circumstances tp show that defendant knew he was buying a lawsuit; that the prosecution of a suit by Conklin and others, for their own benefit, was lawful, and the deed was good; but that as Charles A. Tucker was a lessor, it was maintenance if the land was held, at the time,…

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance “ upon 7* ii iii i i .i i • goat shnsj laden, or to be laden, on board the brig Brutus, at Coringa, in India, on a voyage from thence to New-York, valuing the said skins at 50 cents each.” The policy was dated the 15th November, 1808, and the sum of 15,000 dollars was subscribed.

THIS was an action on an open policy of insurance, dated the 24th of January, 1807, upon the cargo on board the ship Vermont, at and from New-York to Leghorn. The policy contained a “ written clause, warranted not to abandon, if captured, until condemned, or until after a detention of six months, after advice received 7 here of the capture.” At the trial, the plaintiff proved an interest in the car- . , . - , , , go insured, to the amount covered by the policy, and no more.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts. The first count stated that the defendant, on the 20th July-, 1807, was indebted to Pennoyer fe?

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Orange county. The defendant in error, brought an action of assumpsit, against the plaintiffs in error, as executors of David Crawford, deceased, in the court below.

THIS was an action of covenant, on an agreement for the sale of a lot of land. , r The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the Duchess circuit, in September-, 1810. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the following case.

THIS was an action of ejectment, for land in the Mini-J 7 sink Angle, in Orange county. The cause was tried at * . . . J the Orange circuit, in September, 1810, before Mr. Jus- . _ tice Van Ness. Held: one twenty-third part thereof, to each of the patentees, in fee-simple. Parson, by deed, dated 26th November, 1706, reciting the patent, conveyed his twenty-third part to Henry Van Ball, with covenant of warranty.

<p>THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, on a cargo laden on board a vessel, called the Cornelia, on a VOyage at and from New-York to St. Thomas. The ■> o ■ policy was dated 20th January, 1807. The declaration r > \vas for a total loss, by barratry or the master, iriea non ClSSUtilpSlt•</p> <p>The cause was tried at the New-York sittings, in JDecember, 1810, before the Chief Justice.</p> <p>The policy and interest of the plaintiff were admitted, 1 J 1 From the testimony of the mate, it appeared that the vessel sailed from New-York, about the 19th January, 1807, on . . , , , . , the voyage insured. 1 hey experienced bad weather, and were obliged to throw overboard some part of the cargo, being two casks of hardware, and one cask of nails, and some codfish and cheese. Having fallen to leeward of St. Thomas, the master, on coming off St. Juan, in the ... island of Porto Rico, declared his intention to put into ,. - . . l^-rccv that port, and accordingly went in there, on the ath ot January, 1807. The vessel might have easily beat up to St. Thomas, and would have probably reached that island foe next day. The cargo which consisted of hardware J e v and provisions, shipped by different persons, was landed, 1 . . and was in good order; some repairs were made to the vessel, which did not cost more than 100 dollars; the cargo might easily have been carried to St. Thomas; the two islands being near each other, separated only by a narrow passage; and there was a daily intercourse between them by boats and vessels. The cargo was left at J 0 St. juany and the vessel was afterwards sold there, and King, the master, continued to have charge of her, and went in her a voyage to St. Croix, and from thence to 'St. Thomas, from whence she returned to St. Juan, and afterwards, made several voyages between the West-India 0 , _ _ . _ ' islands and the Spciixish Iuczztz» "</p> <p>From the depositions of the consignees of the goods of the plaintiff, taken at St- Thomas, it appeared, that they received a letter from the plaintiff, dated the 15th January, 1807, mentioning that he should make a shipment to them by the Cornelia, to sail in five days, of about 200 barrels of flour, &c. but they heard nothing^ of the vessel, except from report, (which was, that the Cornelia had put into St. Juan in distress, and the vessel, after being surveyed, was condemned and sold, and purchased by the master and repaired) until she arrived at St. Thomas from St. Croix, in ballast, when the consignees applied to the master, and demanded the goods consigned to them by the plaintiff, and the master answered that the vessel during her voyage from New-York, was in such distress, that he had been obliged, for the preservation of the lives of himself and crew, to throw the goods overboard; the vessel left St. Thomas for Currafoa.</p> <p>The defendants produced in evidence a charter party, dated the 17th December, 1806, made between Dunstan and Denniston Wood-, owners of the sloop Cornelia, and William King, master, by which the owners granted and let to freight the said vessel to the master, from the date, for and during such time as the master might choose to employ her, provided it should not exceed four months, for and at the rate of 153 dollars per month : and the owners covenanted to put the vessel in good repair, and keep, her in repair, during the time she was employed by the master, at their own cost, and that the vessel should be at the risk of the owners, during all the time; and the master was allowed until the 7th April, 18Q7, to pay the hire of the vessel, unless she should, before that time, be delivered up to the owners, or lost. And in consideration of the premises, the master covenanted to take and employ the vessel on the terms mentioned, and to 46 victual and man her at his own cost and charges, until she should be delivered back to the owners, or be lost and that he wbidd pay for the use of the said vessel, at the rate of 153 dollars per month, &c.</p> <p>The judge charged the jury, that if they believed the conduct of the master amounted to barratry, and he thought it did, to find a verdict for the plaintiff for a total loss : and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for a total loss.</p> <p>A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial.</p>

THESE were actions on three separate policies of in-r r surance* The first was dated the 31st of October, 180/, upon certain articles, (8,750 pieces of nankeens,) speeified in the policy, as part of the cargo of the ship Hero, Barnard, master, valued at the sum insured, at ' and from New-York to Leghorn, at a premium of 5 per cent. From the deposition of the master, the following facts appeared: The ship sailed about the 1st of November, 1807, on the voyage insured.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Genessee 7 - , county» A judgment was obtained by Cross?nany thedefendant in error, against Clement, in the court below, in June, 1808, on which a writ of error was brought, and a judgment of reversal by default, for not joining in error, was obtained in this court, in August term, 1810.

THIS was a joint action of trespass against three defendants. A judgment by default, for want of a plea, was obtained in August, 1810, against one of the . fendants. (S. Southwick.) The other two defendants x J pleaded. A motion was now made by Lansing, one of the other defendants, for judgment as in case of nonsuit, for not bringing the cause to trial.

THE defendant was indicted at the general sessions of the peace, held at Kingsbury, in the county of Wash-e 1 e 7 ° J v higton^ va.

<p>¿hasedV‘a1ot$Uof land of B. the title to, which' was doubtful, rcconveyed*1 to B. title‘to* the* lott ques^o/n! con-might* use*" the name of A. in an action of ejectment to recover the land, hut A. was not ther^xpeusefoc to Vdoamthththe suits ov lots in question, except as to the using his name, ifnecessary.</p> <p>C B¿n littomey! of eje’etment™md had Cconsent«i to let his name be used, and U. accordingly used as one of the lestiffS'in the^suits ransequence1’’ of Wfthe^iesL™6 was obliged to pay the costs» A. brought an action on the case against C. the attorney, for using his name without his consent, so as to subject him to the payment of costs, kc.; it was held that the authority given by A. to B. being conditional and limited, C. followed the directions of B. at his peril, and had no right to use the name of A. so as to subject him to any costs or expenses; and that A. was entitled to recover of C.the amount of the costs which he had been compelled to pay.</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The; parties in January, 1809, submitted to the judges of court of common pleas of Schoharie, a piece of c^ot^» f°r the bounty of 80 dollars, given by the legislature, and, at the time of the submission, made to each . _ . . , , other mutual promises, to wit: Briggs promised, that it the cloth presented by him obtained the bounty, that then he would pay Tillotson the one half thereof, deducting t^ie charges for procuring the…

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on goods, laden on board “ the American ship called the Rodman, at and from St. Petersburgh to New-TorkP The policy was dated the 31st October, 1807, and 20,000 dollars subscribed, at a premium of three per cent.

<p>AN inquisition had been found before a justice of the . J peace, pursuant to the 20th section of the act to regulate highways, (sess. 24. c. 186.) of an encroachment on the liighway, by Low, the appellant, and which was removed to this court, by certiorari, and quashed. And the question now raised for the consideration of the court, was, 9 5 whether the party was entitled to costs.</p>

SHERWOOD, for the defendants, moved to set aside . . , , . . . an inquest, taken at the last circuit m Tioga county, and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity. He cited 5 Johns. Rep. 235, 236. 2 Wils. 74. . The irregularity-relied upon, was the want of the name of counsel to the replication. The plea was a special plea of payment to the holder and payee of a promissory note, before it was endorsed tp the plaintiff; and a general replication, denying the payment.

A RUTE was obtained at the last term, requiring the defendants to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, to compel them to audit an account of the plaintiff’s for medicine and attendance, as a physician, on one Nathaniel Turner, a pauper.

•N. WILLIAMS, for the defendant, moved to set aside the default entered in this cause, for want of a plea, and all subsequent proceedings, for irregularity. The defendant had pleaded the general issue and plene administravit, a copy of which was, in due season, delivered to the plaintiff’s attorney, but the pleas not being Signed by counsel, the plaintiff’s ^attorney treated them as J a nullity, and entered a default for want of a plea.

<p>WRITS of habeas corpus were awarded, in the last e vacation, by the recorder of Albanyy to Nathan Spier7 of the town of Watervliet, to bring up the body of Hugh MiDozvle, and to Nathan Slosson, of the same place, to bring up the body of John BPDotvle. The recorder cer¿ified the writs and returns into this court, and recosí- ’ ° nised the parties to appear at this term, and produce the , , . - infants. They now appeared, and the infants were pro™ , , . duced in court.</p> <p>The return by Nathan Spier stated, that on the 3d of ^ay, 1808, Matthew M-Dowle, father of the infant, sealed and delivered to him an indenture, which was set forth, by which he bound his son Hugh-, then six years of age, to Nathan Spier, (a member of the society called Shakers,) to be by him, or under his care, fed, clothed, taught to read and write, and in the carpenter’s and joiner’s trade, provided circumstances would admit, and the boy inclined, and to instruct him in other matters according to his faith, and the faith and practice of the church and society to which he belonged, until the age of 21. If the boy inclined to depart before, the father agreed to take him away, on being duly notified, &c.</p> <p>The indentures were executed by Spier, and the father of the infant. The return further stated, that the infant had never manifested any desire to depart, but an inclination to stay, though on the 20th of December last, the father and James MLDotvle had fraudulently and forcibly taken away the boy and kept him six weeks; that he, Spier, had performed the covenants in the indenture on his part, and was willing to perform, &c.</p> <p>The return to the other writ was similar; it stated that John was bound by his father on the 23d of April, 1808, the infant being then 8 years old, and that he was to be taught the trade of a blacksmith, &c.</p> <p>A petition was also presented, signed by the infants, one being 11, and the other 8 years old, praying that they might now be permitted to execute the indentures.</p>

HILDRETH, (Attorney-General,) in behalf of David I. Zeilly, and Joseph Spreaker, moved, that all sales of lot No. 4. in Van SlycPs and Depeysteps patent, in the town of Palatine, in the county of Montgomery, under a fieri facias issued in the above cause, be postponed indefinitely, or forbidden. _ In the affidavits which were read, the following facts were stated.

SU'D AM, in behalf oi Johannis G. Hardenbergh, moved to set aside the attachment issued in this cause, for the non-payment of costs in a certain suit in ejectment.

VAN VECHTEN, for the defendant, moved to set aside the execution issued in this cause, in the hands of the sheriff, or that all proceedings be stayed, so far as relates to the real estate of the defendant, advertised for sale, by the sheriff, under the execution.

H. BLEECKER, for the defendant, moved that he _ . be discharged from imprisonment, on a ca. sa. issued m this cause. The affidavit of the defendant stated, that he was sued by bill, on a bond executed by him and Daniel Powers, by which they were, jointly and severally, bound to the .

<p>Where it appeared from the face of the piainhfthe^óurí'of th^The demand ™ c|gR,”’0UR¿ nof-s in any evpnt, recover aso dollars, tho* the damages demanded in the deciamion°were "oort5pro“R‘lRd n'("tw-^e. in open court a habeas corpus to remove the caire, which had" been duly Miowrefused 'to grant a"a¡n*tttbenjudIp^mmon pl°eas‘ R”t.¡toüc)B^ "here the domaud appears lo he uncertain, so (hat the plaintiff might recover above 250 dollars, the writ must be turned- and ’ e°</p>

<p>Where a ires£»“lands”™' served by the state for the support of the gos- or* a,<>nSC lands state',S1'the° suit inUthcenameSof tóe poor^oFúie town in which the trespass is committed, in order to entitle the plaintiff to dmnages, under 25th Apri^i sos! 2&c. 9*)</p> <p>is brought by the supervisors, under the act of the 5th February, 1810, (sess. 33. c. 5.) or the act passed the 11th Jiprü, ISOS, (sess. 31. c. 18.) the plaintiff is not entitled to treble damages.</p> <p>In order to recover treble damages, in cases where the party is entitled to them, the declaration of the plaintiff should refer to the act, that the defendant may be apprized of the extent of his demand, and the jury must find him guilty of the trespass alleged, and assess the single value of the timher or trees cut, and this finding of the jury must be endorsed on the postea, on the return of which the court wifi, on motion, treble the damages.</p>

SHERWOOD, for the defendant, moved to set aside- . . the proceedings m this cause, for irregularity. The de» fendant is one of the attorneys of thjs court, and the bill i i • , t was served on his agent only,

JUDGMENTS, in each of the above causes, were 7 signed, filed, and docketed on the 8th of October, 1810; . , - „ . , r a,7 , . , m the first cause, in the city of Albany, and, in the second cause, in the city of New-York. Op the same day, the 8th of October, a fieri facias was isshed in the first cause, and delivered to the sheriff of Albany, on which J was endorsed, “ Levy 110 dollars, with interest, from , r ’ .

CRARY moved for a rule against the judges and assistant justices of the court of common pleas of the county of Washington, to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing them to proceed in the above cause.

upon payment of costs. A RULE was granted, at the last Matt term, on mo- ^ “ tion of the defendant, to set aside the default entered in , . ,. ,. , , ,. , this cause for want of a plea, and all subsequent pro- ,. ceedmgs, The costs were taxed, and regularly demanded of the defendant on the 24th of June last, and not being paid, J 1 the plaintiff, more than a month after the demand, issued ., . , , . . an execution on the judgment he had obtained, prior tb , , P - May term,…

RODMAN, for the defendant in error, moved that the . plaintiff s attorney pay the costs on error, in the above • , _ . - , YT . cause, amounting to 164 dollars and 94 cents, lie read an affidavit, stating, that a judgment had been obtained in the mayor’s court of Hudson, in favour of Dakin, against Fraru, for 341 dollars and 81 cents; and that ° J1 before the judgment was rendered, the defendant below™ J , . removed out of the’state, mio Canada, where he has since resided,…

<p>In an action of tre.spnsssde boms asportatis, the venue had been changed, on the of the defendant’; county0™ "iaratrespass'16^6iyas committed ; and fheplaintiffifler.-wards applied to bring back the •venue to the d°'^y on "'the ladtwoIrtnore material, witnesses residing in that county ; hut the court refused to grant the motion, unless the plaiutift" Would stipulate to giye material evidence arising in the'county of Qnondpga.</p>

AT the last February term, the plaintiff, Austin, sued David Bemiss, jun. and Otis Follet, and David Bemiss, in twQ separate actions, on a promissory note, dated 11th No-member, 1808; the former as makers, and the latter as endorsor of the same note. The proceedings in each suit were separate, and judgments taken in each, separately, by cognovit actionem.

THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, st de bonis asportatis. There was a verdict for the plain- * tiff for 45 dollars. A motion was now made, in behalf of the defendant, that the costs taxed in his favour, be set oE against the damages recovered by the plaintiE, the damages being under SO dollars. The plaintiE was reputed to be ink Solvent.

POWERS, in behalf of the defendant, moved to set' as^e t^e proceedings on the bail-bond in this cause»' The writ in the original cause was returnable last Nov cm- ° berX&cm.. On the 12th December, special bail in the \ cause was filed in the clerk s office, and a notice thereof, with a notice of retainer by the defendant’s attorney, serve It appeared that the bail-piece contained the name of’ , ' one real and substantial person and John Doe.

<p>LYNCH, for the defendant, moved to set aside the proceedings in this suit on the bail-bond. The writ in the original suit was returnable the first day of the last term; and special bail was filed, and notice thereof given, to the plaintiff’s attorney, on the 3d June, being within 20 days after the last day of term.</p>

<p>In an action gainst a parcha» ser of land andes sheriff’s sale0 the ^execution bs <lue-</p> <p>if an execa.» tion issue after n year and a day9 without a revival of the judg* Jpentby a scire ^oidabsí ^tThe instance of the party agatnrt owhonx it is>u£iu</p> <p>After an escape by the defendant from, custody on a ca. ca. the plaintiff may proceed against the sheriff for the escape, and at the same time take out a fieri facias against the property of the defendant, for the remedies are not inconsistent with each other.</p> <p>A purchaser at a sheriff’s sale cannot be affected by any matter subsequent to the cale? arising between the parties to the judgment to which he is a stranger. -</p> <p>The plaintiff’s attorney, from his general character as attorney,’ has no authority to die» charge the defendant from execution on a ca sa,, until the money is paid His general an* thority ceases with the judgment, or at least with the issuing of an execution witibjia the vear</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment for part of great lot No. 8. in Henderson's patent. The cause was tried at the Herkimer circuit, in June, 1811, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The lessors owned 150 acres of land, on the north part of lot No. 8. and extending across the whole width of the lot, as delineated on the map of the patent, exhibited at the trial. The defendant owned the whole of lot No. 7. and the only question was as to the linti bounding between the two lots.

THIS was an action of trespass on the case, brought .against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Madi- ° ' 'SOU, for an escape.

THIS was an action of ejectment, for land in Kinder-hook. The cause was tried at the last Columbia circuit, before Mr. Justice Thompson.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note. The first count of the plaintiff’s declaration stated, that defendant, on the 25th May, 1809, at, &c. made his certain promissory note in writing, subscribed, &c. and 1 u then and there delivered the same to the plaintiff, by which said note the defendant promised to pay to the piajntjff5 or order, 112 dollars and 53 cents.

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Tiosra ’ r ° County. „, , , lhe declaration in the court below contained two counts.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Brewster sued Skelton before the justice; and declared on a promise, made by Skelton, to pay the amount due on a cer^in execution against one W. S. being the sum of 25 dollars. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. On the 1 * trial, the plaintiff proved, that Brewster recovered iudg- ’ f , . , „ .

THIS was an action of trespass for taking and impoundingthe plaintiff’s hogs. The cause was tried at XJlster circuit, in 1810, before Mr. Justice Tates.

THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at the Mont~ gomery circuit, in September last, before Mr. Justice y t x After the confession of lease, entry and ouster by the _ 7 J J defendant, the plaintiff proved a deed of the land t® the lessors in fee; and that the defendant was, at the commencement of the suit, and still is, in possession.

THIS xvas an action of debt for an escape. The cause xvas tried, at the Madison circuit, in Mail, 1811, before 7 ¡ J 7 7 Mr. Justice Tates. ... . , _ The plaintiffs gave m evidence a judgment recovered by them against one W. Weld, in August term, 1807, and a test. ca. sa. on whidh the defendant returned that he had taken Weld, and had him in his custody.

THIS xvas an action of assumpsit, on a note given by * 7 ° J the defendant to the intestate, for the sum of 90 dollars, At the trial, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for i ii aii . t»i i 15 dollars. And the question submitted to the court was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover costs.

<p>IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.</p> <p>¿>nnth brought an action oi trespass quare clausum fregit, against Johnson, and for cutting and carrying away wheat. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a former trial in bar. Upon the trial, and before the jury were sworn, the defendant proved a former suit, by the same , . . plaintiff, against him, tor wheat cut and carried away; ón which trial there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The justice ruled that this was no bar. The jury were sworn. The plaintiff went on and proved the trespass and cutting, &c. and that the defendant ad-1 0 e Blitted that the wheat belonged to the plaintiff. The de- ¿ fendant offered to prove the former trial in bar, to the jury ; but the justice overruled it, and a verdict was found for F~rith, on which fh#></p>

<p>IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court,</p> <p>Colwell sued Crain, as endorser of a promissory note, given by one Gillet to him. 'After the note was negoRated and had become due, the plaintiff received part of Qf the maker. Three months after it fell due, and a few days after the maker had absconded, the plaintiff de- ; manded thq£ balance of the defendant, who said, he would “ turn o,ut notes, though he did not think he was holden, since Gillet went away.” The plaintiff refused t^le notes. -jfAt a subsequent time, the defendant refused to „jve tijem to the plaintiff. There was a judgment ° 1 J for the plaintiff.</p>

THIS was an action of ejectment for a lot of land in Coopers-Town, in the county of Otsego. The cause was tried at the Otsego circuit, in May last, before Mr. Justire Van Ness' uce y an jyess.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for medicine and , . . „ attendance as a physician, ixc. The case was tried, at the Madison circuit, before Mr. Justice Tates, in May last. The plaintiff proved his demand, as stated in his account, to be 53 dollars and 96 7 e e cents.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiffs in error brought an action of deceit• against Allen, for delivering whiskey, by false measure, and for fraudulently, in their absence, using their distillery and wood. The defendant pleaded a former suit and recovery, in bar, commenced by him against the plaintiffs, on a con- • tract, in which suit the plaintiffs ought to have set off their demand.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The defendants in error sued the plaintiff in error for overflowing their land by his mill-dam. Issue was joined and a venire returned, on the 28th of February. By agreement between the parties, the cause was adjourned to the 22d August. The plaintiffs appeared, but the defendant did not appear.

THIS was an action of covenant, on articles of agree* _ 1 ment, made between the parties the B3d March, 1804, by . . . / which the plaintiffs agreed to erect a frame of certain dimensions, on a certain lot, for an oil-mill, on or before the 15th June following; and the defendant agreed to make the press and other machinery for the mill, and to complete the mill; the plaintiffs finding all materials and 1 1 v boarding the workmen, &c. and when the mill was completed, the…

THIS was an action of ejectment, for part of lot No , , . , , , r i , 98. together with the waters and banks or the creek or stream running through it, for the use of the mills, in the toWn of Manlius, in the county of Onondaga. The cause was tried before Mr. justice Tales, at the Onondaga circuJt in June last.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, on two promissory notes, made by the defendant, dated at Boylston, in the state of Massachusetts, the 1st March, 1794, each for 20 7 7 7 pounds, the one payable on demand, the other in six * ’ r J years. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and , r ,. . . the statute or limitations. The cause was tried before Mr. justice Van Ness, at the Oneida circuit, in June last.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Caryell sued Irwin for work and labour performed for Mm. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and a set off. The trial was postponed, at the instance of Irwin, and security given. At the trial, the defendant called the seJ ° 7 . eurity as a witness, and prayed that he might be discharged as security, and another person, then offered, be taken in his stead; but the motion was denied, and the witness rejected.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court Law sued Rice before the justice. There was a trial b;= j -jry, and a verdict for the defendant. Before the trial, the justice moved into the house of one Morse, who kept a tavern. He occupied one end of the house, but the whole communicated, in the inside, by a passage, and Morse continued keeping tavern at the time of the trial.

<p>THIS was an action of debt on an award. The decíaration, after setting forth the penalty of the bond, count- . . ... . - . . . - . n ea on the condition, submission and award. After statlng the submission of all controversies, &c. between the Parties>to three arbitrators, and to abide the award of them, or any two of them, &c. “ then the obligation to * . . • ° be void, or otherwise to remain in full force and virtue,” . it proceeded, “ and whereas, there Was also a suit dependjng,” &c. “ against the plaintiff, in favour of David Fisk, the said arbitrators were also to take the said suit in-, consideration and award,” &c. (setting forth the award, &c.) The defendant pleaded no such award, on which issue was joined. The case set forth the declaration, bond and condition and award; and it appeared that the declaration served on the defendant’s attorney differed from that contained in the nisi prius. record, as to the amount awarded; and that the suit of David Fisk, asrainst 'fames was also included in the condition of the J . bond of submission. The defendant’s counsel objected to the variance, at the trial. It was admitted that true copies of the bond and award had been served on the defendant, with the declaration; and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case agreed upon by the parties,</p>

<p>An order of two justices of A. .for the removal of a pauper, directed the constable to convey and transport him to the town of W. being the place from whence he last deih^íiíin'to^a constable of W. whowas required also to deliver coustabie; and Meto™ms°abie¡ shouidhbePtrans^ ported to the place of i<is last legal settlement, if any he lmu, m the state. The pauper was delivered to a constable of W. who transported and delivered him to a constable of N. fhe overseers of hi. appealed to the general sessions from the order, who dismissed the appeal. It was held, that the order had no'iorce beyond the town of W. to which the pauper was first sent; and as to every other place or purpose, was void, for uncertainty; and that ÜT. not being bound by such an order to receive the pauper, had no right of appeal, having acted in their own wrong.</p> <p>Where paupers are to he sent out of the state, by virtue of the 7th section of the act, (sess. 24. c. 184.) the justices in their Older of removal, must designate the route by which the pauperis tobe transpO' techand not leave it to the discretion of constables, who are mere ministerial officers, who cannot be allowed to take the pauper where they please, in search of his place of last legal settlement-</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Tirrell sued Alderman, by warrant, for a. trespass, in taking a heifer. The defendant pleaded that he was an ° infant, and lived with his father; which was not denied. • The trespass was proved, and the defendant offered his father, as a witness, but the justice rejected him, as interested, on the ground that he was present and directed■. the defendant to take the heifer.

<p>By the Act powers in the freeholders and inhabitants of the village of Poughkeepsie” passed the 8th April, 1801, (sess. 24 c. 182.) the trustees of the tillage have power to make a by-law to prevent the sale of meat, &c. for the consumption of the inhabitants, within certain preserved limits, except at the public market place; and an action may be maintained, by the trustees, to recover the penalty given for every offence against sueh by-law.</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Clark sued Foot before the justice, to recover damages sustained by reason oí Foot's setting fire to the plaintiff’s woods. The cause was tried by a jury. A witness testified that he set fire, by the direction of the defendant, to certain fallow ground, belonging to the defendant, which Sre run into the woodlands of the plaintiff; that he told the defendant of it, who tried only to prevent the fire from burning his own farm.

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession of a school-house, in the village of Lynchvide.

IN error, on certiorari, from a iustice’s court. d Stuyvesant sued Rose, before .the justice. The first J process was a summons, which was returned as person»lly served by reading. The plaintiff appeared on the return day, at the time and place appointed, and exhibited his demand. The return to the certiorari stated* • ' * • 7 that, previous to this, on the morning of the day on which , .

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The plaintiffs in error brought an action, before the justice, against the defendant, to recover certaih penalties incurre4 by violating a by-law of the village of Lansinífburi?, in releasing and rescuing certain geese from the pound, and from persons driving them to pound# The defendant pleaded not guilty, and there was a . • , . trial by jury, tiffs, and being challenged, on his voire dire, answered- ' ° 0 that he was…

THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover the possession of lot No. 36. in the township of Dryden, in the county of Cayuga. The cause was tried at the Cay up a circuit, in June last, before Mr. T ustice Tates. ’ J J . The plaintiff gave m evidence a patent dated the 7th July, 1790, to John Cornelius, for the lot in question) a deed from Henry Hart, dated 17th January, 1784. The present suit was commenced the 5th September, 1808.

<p>A person cannot maintain trespass for goods, sinless lie lias actual or constmctive possession, at the time. aUeas^sueir^ tided To*reduce the goods to his possession when" Se pleases.</p> <p>vered to ufa one year, with crease, and to should beTo°st or uotredeUveredt &tónpSofethea chattels, for a ycar, for a valuable consideration, and not a naked bailment: not1 maintain*16 a ep7vsonS'\i'ha the^possession B*</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, Hopkins sued Menderback, by warrant, before the jusRce* The declaration was for moriey paid, and money jla¿ an¿ received, and, also, that Hopkins, as a constable, ’ 1 r 1 ’ Qn the 12th December, 1807, had an execution against Menderback, at the suit of Winne and Blair, for 4 dollars and 99 cents; and that he, Hopkins, paid the amount to Winne and Blair, but had never received it of Menderback: and, also, on the 20th November,…

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hall brought an action against Fink, for work, labour and services, done and performed by his son, for Fink, The defendant below pleaded the general issue, and offered to set off damages for a breach of a contract, sta- . , . ting, at the same time, that he had once sued Hall on this contract, in the Otsego common pleas, and that judgment had been rendered in favour of Hall.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts. The two first counts were on a special agreement, for the exchange of notes between , . . n , ... the parties, and a warranty ot the note exchanged and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The third count was for money had ,and received, to the use of the plaintiff, money paid, &c. To the two first counts there was a demurrer, and a judgment thereon for the defendant.

<p>THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained six counts. The first count was on a special agreement, made by the intestate, in his life-time, and gtate¿ a breach of the agreement, and the intestate’s liability . but no promise was stated. The second count was for goods sold and delivered to the intestate, in his ° life-time, by which he became indebted, &c. and a promise, by the intestate, in his life-time, and after his death, a promise by the defendant, administrator as aforesaid? to Pay> &c. In the third and fourth counts, which were for goods sold and delivered, and work and labour, the ° . , . promise to pay was also stated to be by the intestate in his life-time, and since his death, by the defendant, adminis~ trator as aforesaid, &c. The 5th count was for work an<^ labour, &c. in consideration of which the intestate, jn his life-time, and the defendant, since the death of the intestate, promised to pay the plaintiff as much as he reasonably deserved to have, &c. and the plaintiff averred, that he reasonably deserved to have for the same one thousand dollars, of which the intestate, in his life-time, an(j the defendant, administrator as aforesaid, at, &c. had 7 notice. The 6th count was for money paid, See. and al- .... ......... , leged the promise by the intestate, m his hie-time, and by the “ defendant, administrator as aforesaid,” since the death of the intestate. The breach was alleged to be by intestaiea in his life-time, and by the “ defendant, ad-, ministrator as aforesaid,” since the death of the intestate.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded the general issue; and the cause was tried at the Chenango circuit, in June last, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.</p> <p>A motion was now made, in arrest of judgment, 1. Because, the promise by the intestate and the defendant were joined in the same counts.</p> <p>2. Because the promise, set forth in the five last counts, ought to have been alleged to have been made by the defendant, as administrator, &c.</p> <p>The cause wás submitted to the court, without argument.</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court, The defendants in error brought an action against the plHintift in error, and declared against him on a note drawn by him to them for 14 dollars and 65 cents, dated 13th April, 1809; also, on'an account, for eleven bushels of oats, and on an order, in favour of Edmund Rogers, to . & i the amount of one dollar.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Mosher brought an action of trover against Durell, before the justice, for sheep.

<p>THIS was an action of trespass, brought to recover ° the value of 73 barrels of' whiskey* The .cause was triedy y , the Ontario circuit, before Mr. Justice Tates, on the 27th June, 1811.</p> <p>A witness testified, that on the 18th July, 1807, he so^ t0 Moses Johnson 95 barrels of -whiskey, at 56 cents .per gallon, which was endorsed on a bond given by the to M. Johnson, payable in -whiskey. Seventy-three barrels of the whiskey were put in the store of Ezekiel Taylor, in the village of Canaclaquai. Johnson *en a prisoner, within the liberties of’the prison, 'lav‘mg been surrendered by his bail, and notoriously.a bankrupt,</p> <p>TG -I The defendant, as sheriff of the county of Ontario, on the second Monday of November, 1807, sold the whis^cey *n the store of Taylor, by virtue of a test. fi. fa. issue<^ agabist Johnson, on a judgment obtained against him, on the 12th November, 1805, at the suit of William W. Rodman. The execution was returnable on the second Monday of November, and was delivered to the sheriff, on the 18th September, 1807. At the time, and before the sale, the plaintiff, who was present, gave Pot*ce that the whiskey was his property, and forbade the defendant to sell it.</p> <p>The plaintiff gave in evidence a bill of parcels of 95-barrels of whiskey sold to him by Moses Johnson, dated August 28, 1807, at 50 cents per gallon, amounting' to 1,964 dollars, on which was endorsed a receipt of payment by a note of hand, in full. ’ J</p> <p>From the testimony, it appeared that the plaintiff and ' . . *. several others, became bail for M. Johnson, tor the liberties of the gaol, and that Johnson delivered bonds and notes to them for their indemnity, among which was the bond on which the whiskey was endorsed in part payment, and that the whiskey, when purchased, was delivered to N. Gorham, one of the bail, for their indemnity. On the 28th August, 1807, Gorham and another offered to purchase the whiskey, and Johnson said he wished to sell it, to prevent its being taken in execution at the suit of Rodman, and his thereby gaining a preference over other creditors. Johnson wished to get a better price than was offered; but on the same day, sold it to the plaintiff, and deposited his note taken in. payment, in the hands of Mr. Greig, as security for his bail. Gorham, on being informed that the note was in the hands of Greig, directed Taylor, with whom the whiskey was stored, to deliver it to the plaintiff whenever he wished to take it, as he had purchased it of Johnson ; and the plaintiff called at Taylor’s store to receive the whiskey ; but on account of the sickness of Taylor, it was not then actually delivered. undry</p> <p>It was testified that Greig had in his possession, in the autumn of 1807, a note dated the 28th August, 1807, signed by the plaintiff, for 1,964 dollars, payable in good whiskey, at 50 cents per gallon, on the 1st September, 1808; but whether it was the same note mentioned in "Johnson’s receipt, endorsed on the bill of parcels, the witness could not say, except from report.</p> <p>It appeared that the defendant had given due notice to the plaintiff to produce the note, given by the plaintiff to M. Johnson for the whiskey, in evidence, at the trial of the cause.</p> <p>The defendant proved that the judgment on which the execution issued was for twenty thousand dollars, on a warrant of attorney, given to secure the creditors of the defendant named in the condition of the bond, for debts bona fide due to them from Johnson. The plaintiff, then, offered to prove that this action was tried at the preceding circuit, when one Tiffany was sworn as a wjtnegg jn t[le cause? but was since dead; and that he testified that he was present. when Johnson sold the whiskey to the plaintiff, and that the sale was bona fide. The defendant’s counsel objected to the evidence, unless the plaintiff also produced the nisi prius récord and postea of the trial. But the judge overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence.</p> <p>The jury, under the direction of the judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 1,952 dollars and 91 cents, , which sum included the value of the whiskey, at the time it was sold by the defendant, and also 413 dollars and 16 cents for the interest,. from the time of the sale, to August term last; and it was agreed, that if the court should be of opinion that that sum allowed as damages,' by way of interest, ought not to have been allowed, k should be deducted from the amount, unless a new trial should be granted, for some other cause.</p> <p>A motion was made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial; 1. Because the sale of the whiskey by M, Johnson to the plaintiff was fraudulent, as against creditors ; 2. Because improper evidence was admitted.</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Sen- , , . - , . , ven brought an action or deceit and -warranty against Jones, for selling the art of manufacturing pot-ashes, in a new and improved mode, which he represented to be of great utility; and to induce the plaintiff to buy the art, he affirmed that the ashes would melt easier, and make one quarter more than in the common mode, &c. The defendant, at the trial, gave in evidence a former trial in a suit brought by…

error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. The defendant in error brought an action against the plaintiff *n error’ before a justice, on a note made by the plaintiff in error, payable 30 days after date, to J. G. L. or order, and endorsed by him.

<p>action for fe|¡daíít pleaded general if-sue, with notice of special matter in justification, stating that ia evidence, at cor/ofa’trial of m<1|otment, before the gene-''»l sessions, &e. of the term of June, ism. The record produced was of a trial in 'june> ^sog ¡ it Ilelda’r;at^ce not matenai, anu the record was admissible in evidence. missive, evenhi a case of special pleading, anti more so in case ofa notice sub„ ,t0. t,le general issue, which is regar. ded with, less strictness than</p> <p>Whmsthelicharged iiT°th& „ this is not the first time that theideaoffaisehood and M- B. (meaning the plain tiff) have been associated together, in the minds of many honest men,” (meaning, See-)</p> <p>It was held that evidence, that fiSundry honest men, to wit, A. H. (naming seven persons) and others, believed and considered the plaintiff not to be a man of truth, but addicted to falsehood,” was not admissible, in justification; and that the defendant could only justify the charge, by proving the tact.</p>

<p>IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.</p> <p>Wheedon brought an action of debt against Sebring, for neglecting to proceed on, and return, an execution against one Edward Brown. The defendant below was sued by warrant, and nothing appeared on the return to the attorney, to show that any oath was made by the plaintiff below, that the defendant was about to depart from the county, or that the plaintiff was in danger of losing his debt. On the return of the warrant, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, oh the ground that he was a freeholder, and that he had . been sued by warrant, without any oath having been taken by the plaintiff, and offered to prove that he was a freeholder. This proof the justice refused to hear, because the defendant had acknowledged that the deed for his land was not on record. The defendant then asked for an adjournment, to procure his testimony, and tendered bail to appear and stand trial. The justice refused to grant an adjournment,. unless the defendant would make oath that he wanted some material witness. This the defendant refused to do, and the justice proceeded to try the cause, and' gave judgment for the plaintiff, for 25 dollars.</p>

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Wheedon brought an action against Sebring, before the justice, for neglecting to serve an execution, in favour . y of Wheedon against one Martin Woodruff. On the re- . , . . , . turn clay ot the warrant, the parties appeared, and issue joined, the defendant requested a venire, which wag jssuec[ and delivered to the defendant. The cause 1 was adjourned, by consent of the parties, to the. fid of J J 1 July.

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hale brought an action of trespass on the case against Chase, for enticing away the wife of Hale. The defendant pleaded the general issue.

<p>IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.</p> <p>Lane sued Wells, before a justice, for two penalties, of twelve dollars and fifty cents each, under the 14th section the act concerning slaves and servants, (sess. 24. c. 188.) for harbouring his slave Betty, on the 4th and 5th • J of November, 1810. The defendant pleaded, that Betty, the daughter of the plaintiff, was a member of the societ7 °f Shakers, and is a member of the society in which tj,e defendant resides. That she became a member of the society, by the consent and request of the plaintiff, and " by agreement between the plaintiff, the defendant, and Betty¡ and that she resided among the people called Shakers, '3y ‘hev own choice, without any compulsion. That she was of age and free, and not a slave, nor was the plaintiff her master, within the meaning of the act, nor had she been sold by fraud, nor liable to maintenance, as a pauper, See.</p> <p>The cause was tried by jury. On the trial, the plaintiff proved that he bought Betty, and that she was a slave as the witness had heard, and was born before the plaintiff had married her mother. That the plaintiff bought the mother and Betty, -is slaves. That Betty was at the house of the defendant, and the plaintiff had forbidden the defendant to keep her.</p> <p>The defendant proved that the plaintiff said, he had , , „ , , , r , - , bought Betty and her mother, to free them from slaverv. The plaintiff proved that the Shakers were all in partnership, and had one common interest, as brothers and sisters. The defendant offered several members of the society, as witnesses, to prove the allegations contained in his plea ; but the justice rejected the evidence of the Shakers, who were in full communion in their church. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 25 dollars.</p>

AN indictment, for a forcible entry and detainer, was found the 19th June, 1810, against the defendant, and John Runkle and John Bicker, since deceased, under the 3(* section of the “ act to prevent forcible entries and detainers.” (Sess. 11. c. 6.) v y The indictment stated, that the trustees of the German reformed church in the city of Nexv-York, were seised in , . , . , their demesne, as ree-simple, or and in a certain church, situate, &c. and in a certain school-house,…

IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Curtiss sued Cobb, before the justice, in assumpsit, for a breach of promise; and set out, in his declaration, that ^le defendant had, some time before, sued him before another magistrate, and that, before the return day of the summons he settled with him and paid him three dollars, in full, and the defendant promised to go to the magistrate, and pay the costs, but that'instead of doing so, be appeared at the return of the…

THIS was an action of debt, for the escape of one Green, in the custody of the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Clinton, on a ca. sa. issued against Green, at the suit of the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of assumpsH. The declaration, stated, that in consideration that the plaintiff had dehvered to the defendants certain articles, viz. two horses, and several articles of household furniture, which were specified, the defendants promised, in writing, to , . , . . - deliver the same in six days, alter demand, or pay 450 dollars.

<p>A. in an action. of ejectment against B. which, jmW, ism, reí dhTfor worth s,sue doilars, against the defendant, on which a judgment was en¡■oliowüigf^^ cx/cuted a'quhtl,I'.tIie yousideration ol SOU doilars, to C., who time, of the suit, respeístltíg^the iteras held, that ^e t^ee¿ 0,1,1 cv *-he first section ol the “act to prechamperty" an!i ^essí^'l.'c.'sV.) ]{td,PdariTgAo °Z « ¡t>if made witii a knowledge of the suit, and not tion CofSa"prei I™*champerty, niSde^under tended title.</p>

IN error, from the court of common pleas of Saratoga county. The plaintiffs in error brought an action of assumpsit against the defendants in the court below. The declaration was in the usual form, on a promissory note under the statute.

■ THIS was an action of ejectment, brought to recover , u the easterly half of the westerly quarter of lot No. 41. in Springfield patent. The cause was tried at the Otsego circuit, in June last, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. The plaintiff gave in evidence a deed for a piece of land, including the premises in question, dated in June, 1803, from Julius Shaw to the lessor; subject to a previous mortgage from Shaw to John White, dated 13th of January, 1802.

THIS was ah action of ejectment, for lot No. 87. in th e township of Camillas.

THIS was an action of ejectment, for part df lot No. J . 74. in the town of Hector, and was tried at the last Sene- . . - _, „ ea circuit, before Mr,, J ustice Fates. The plaintiff gave in evidence an exemplification of an. awal'd of the Onondaga commissioners, dated the 29th Tleeember, 1-800, awarding the lot in question to John 1 0 ■*- u Currie, one of the lessors.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, on the * American brig Ohio, from New-York to the island of To neriffe, and at and from thence to New-York, at a prexnium of five and a half per cent. The policy was dated 31st August, 1809.

THE defendant in error brought an action of ejectment, m the supreme court, on the demise of Johannis L. Van Allen and John J. Van Allen, to recover of the plaintiffs in error, the possession of a grist-mill, saw-mill, and lands thereto adjoining, situate in the town of Kinder» _ J hook, in the county of Columbia.

THIS was an action of ejectment, and was tried at the Otsego circuit, in June, 1806, when a verdict was take«; subject to the opinion of the supreme court on a case’ stating the evidence produced at the trial, with liberty to either party to turn the same into a special 1 verdict.

THIS case came before this court, oil a writ of error, fr°m the supreme court, on a judgment in partition.