Murray, and others, v. Alsop and Pomeroy.--The People v. Byron.

2d. There may be a partial as well as a total loss on profits, as where part of the goods do not arrive, it is partial, and when none arrive, it is total.

3d. A new trial awarded because there appeared real doubt, contradictory evidence and intricacy, and the property of considerable value.

MURRAY, and others, against ALSOP & POMEROY.

THE insurance was against all risks, but accompanied with a representation that the vessel was French built, and would have on board an original bill of sale to the plaintiffs, with a certificate of our cousul.

1st. This paper was in fact on board, but not to the knowledge of the master, and therefore, being captured, to no purpose; it was the same as if it had not existed.

2d. It was material, and, therefore, discharged the defendants.

THE PEOPLE against BYRON.

1st. A guardianship by chancery appointment, or by testament, creates an interest coupled with a power, and therefore, survives.

2d. A surety for two joint guardians, is liable for the conduct of the survivor, as well as for both of them, before the decease of one.

Walker ads. Ballard.-Roosevelt ads. Wilkie.-Ellis ads. Dusenbury.-&c.

WALKER ads. BALLARD.

1st. It is sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds, that a contract in writing be signed by the party to be charged therewith, the defendant having signed it, is therefore, bound.

2d. An executory contract for the sale of lands, not acted upon by either party for a length of time, (in this case 4 or 5 years,) shall be presumed to have been rescinded.

ROOSEVELT ads. WILKIE.

ON an accommodation note, indorsed and made by any prrties, the real borrower and lender are only to be regarded as to the question of usury.

2d. A verdict set aside, as against evidence, on that question. Vide S. C. post.

ELLIS ads. DUSENBURY.

A person making a note in the name of another as his attorney, is liable personally, as the maker would be, if he have not a competent power. Vide Cottrel v. Thorn and O'Hara, post.

DUNCAN against DUBOYS.

A private act was suffered to be read at the trial as public.

Herring v. Sanger.-Nase v. Peck.-Ward v. Haight.

A motion for a new trial by the defendant on that ground was denied, on the plaintiff's producing an exemplification of the act to the court, it being a matter of record.

HERRING against SANGER.

1st. A note of hand given for a prior simple contract debt, does not extinguish it.

2d. If payable at a future day, it suspends the time for payment of the prior debt.

3d. It being negotiable, but not in fact negotiated, but kept till overdue, will not make a difference.

4th. Had it been negotiated, it would be otherwise.

NASE against PECK.

On a writ of right.—An outstanding title here and in ejectment, must appear to be a subsisting title at the time, and not of any antecedent period. Other points were considered by each judge, &c.

WARD against HAIGHT.

A sheriff's inquest is intended to inform the conscience of the court, and unless the inquisition appear to be unjust, the court will not nicely examine into the legality of the evidence admitted.

Arcularius & Drake v. Mayor, &c., of New York.-&c.

ARCULARIUS & DRAKE against MAYOR, &c., OF NEW

YORK.

A mandamus to the mayor, &c., of New York to admit and swear in one as an alderman and another as an assistant, refused, because these offices appeared already to be filled, and the proper remedy is first to try the rights of the incumbents by quo warranto, and after judgment of ouster therein this application would be proper.

STEWARTS against EXECUTORS OF EDEN.

AN inquest by default, set aside on the ground of surprise, and that defendants are executors and swear to merits, but on payment of costs.

LUDLOW ads. GROZART.

AN award is sufficiently certain for the purpose of an Adjustment of a loss on a policy, if data are given from which, by calculation, it can be rendered certain.

JENKINS ads. UNION TURNPIKE Co.

IN assumpsit. Motion to change the venue denied on the common affidavit. A special cause ought to be shown.

Holmes & Holmes v. Lansing.-&c.

HOLMES & HOLMES against LANSING.

1ST. It being stated in a special verdict that the sheriff permitted the prisoner to have the liberties, is (if that amounts to an escape,) equivalent to a voluntary escape.

2nd. The act of 5th April, 1798, regulating the liberties, is a valid act within the constitution of the United States. 3d. That act is for the sheriff's indemnity only, and he may permit a prisoner to enjoy the liberties without security and without incurring an escape.

DISBOROUGH and others against NEILSON and others.

1ST. A special agreement to deliver from 700 to 1000 barrels of meal at a certain price, construed to be optional with the vendor to deliver the whole or any parcel between those numbers, and the vendee is bound to accept them.

VAN NUYS against TERHUNE.

IN trespass, the plaintiff offered a witness who had con veyed and warranted the title of the premises to him; held, to be a competent witness so long as the action depended on the proof of possession and of the trespass only.