Since this volume was printed, Mr. Justice Story has requested that the following corrections and additions should be made in the opinions delivered by him. He has also obligingly favored the public with the note to the case of the Caroline.

66

Page 467, line 9. Instead of this sentence, "The descent of an estate of purchase, from brother to brother, and from a son to a parent, where the brother or the parent is the propo“situs, is not directly within the language of the statute."

Read as follows, viz:

The case of a propositus dying seized of an estate which descended to him from his brother who had taken the same by purchase or by descent not ex parte paterna or materna; and the case of a propositus dying seized of an estate which descended to him from his own child who had taken the same by purchase or by a like descent; are not directly within the language of the statute.

Page 468, line 33. For " of a parent from a child" read from a child to a parent.

Page 618, line 22. 2.

623,

626,

For "any" read on any thing.

For "Courts" read commonwealth.

41 & 44. Erase the inverted commas.

21. For "alienage” read purchases by aliens

NOTE.

In the case of the CAROLINE, p. 496, 500, the ground, upon which the sentence of this Court was founded, is understood to be as follows:

"The only offences in the statute of 22d March, 1794, ch. 11, for which a vessel could be forfeited, are that the same vessel is "fitted out" or "caused to sail" for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade.

The libel in this case alleges, in the alternative, that the brig Caroline "caused to "was built, equipped, loaded, or otherwise prepared" &c. or It does not theresail," &c. for the purpose of carrying on the slave trade. fore positively allege that the vessel" was fitted out" or "caused to sail ;" and the libel might be true in the manner in which the charge was stated, and yet no offence committed which would induce a forfeiture of the vessel. For if the vessel was "built, or loaded, or prepared" for the purpose of the slave trade, the alternative averment in the libel would be completely satisfied; and yet if she was not “fitted out" or " caused to sail" she could not be forfeited. The facts, therefore, constituting the offence, not being directly averred, the libel could not be sustained. But the Court did not mean to decide that stating the charge in the alternative would not have been sufficient if each alternative had constituted an offence for which the vessel would have been forfeited.

The same observations are applicable to the count founded on the act of 2d of March, 1807, ch. 67."