Page images
PDF
EPUB

Son,

285,

PAGE

PAGZ Rider v. Kidder,

161 United States o. Sophia MugRochfort v Nugent, 282 dalena,

282 Russel v. Hamilions

365

v. Peggy, 289 v. Langstaffe, 144. 146

the king and W4t

286 S

v. Hooe,

293

v. Fisher, 294. 297 Scott v. Trent,

38 Shipley's case,

20

V Sill v. Worswick,

293 Si nms v. Cook,

148 Violett v. Patton, 50. 325. 327 Siviih v. Buchannan,

293 v. Ev.ins,

217

W v. Hancock,

367 Sulh v. B. wles,

217 Wain v. Warlters, 145. 14 Speed v. Lewis,

216 Wallace v. Duchess of Cumber. Stewart v. Dunlop, 208 land,

259 Stouldert v. M'Clanaghan, 260 Ward v. Kenton,

237 Siukes v. Porter,

161 Waterhouse v. Woodstreet, 20 Straton v. Ristall, 147 Webber v. Tivill,

17 Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 83 Welford v. Liddel,

IT Sweuringen v. Briscow, 217 Whitaker & Wife and Ward v.

Kenton and Fox,

216 T While v. Jones,

238

Williamson v. Allisom 108 Taliaferro v. Robb, 148 Wilson v. Speed,

216 Tbe King v. Inhabitants of St. Winch v. Kreley,

325 Bartholomews,

76 Wilist 1 v. Fralicisco, 148 The Maria, 340 Wiscort v. Vaucny,

283 Wood's case,

365 U

United States v. Betsey and Charlotte,

282

ERRATA.

Fage 10 line 97, for “of gmand” read or ground.

19 16, for his counsel" read the pluintif, counsel.
113 21, for “ decisions" read decision.
137 last line for, “ 1799," read 1779
139 line 37, for “ was unnecessary" read is unnecessary.
170 19, for “ the description" read one description.
18$ 15, for " defence” read offence.
191 9, after the opinion of the court, in the case of The

Marine Insurance Compuny of Alexandria v. Young, in-
sert the following opinion of Judge Jobison, which wu
mislaid and omitted to be inserted in its proper place.
JOENSON, J. " My object in expressing my opinion ia
this case, is to avoid having an ambiguous decision here.
after imputed to me, or an opinion which I would not
wish to he understood to have given.
* I doelde against the appellant on the first point, becauso
an examination of a witness, taken under commission,
cannot possibly be considered wrillen evidence, as the
eounsel have contended it is ; nor is the meaning of
a'witness, words for the court to determine ; but strictly
within the province of the jury.
“ I deoide against the appellant on the second ground, be-
cause I am of opinion that ng appeal lies 10 this crairt
from the decision of a circuit court on a motion for a
new trial.”

290 line 16, for " northern" read southern.

40 10, for “ preserved" read presumeda 348 4, for “ principul" rend principle. 889

1, for Rodford, read Radford 995 81, read “ members" must concur." 346 91, of margin, between " is” and “of” insert out.

SUPREME COURT U. S.

FEBRUARY TERM, 1809.

0000000

THE UNITED STATES v. WEEKS.

THEUNIPEP
STATES

v. WEEKS.

THE writ of error in this case was dismissed by A writ of error the assent of the attorney-general, it having been does not lieli issued from this court directly to the District Court supreme court for Main District; whereas by the 10th sect. of the

of the U. States

to the district judiciary act of 1789, vol. 1. p. 55. writs of er.court of the disror lie from decisions in that court to the circuit trict of Main, court of Massachusetts in the same manner as from ter has all the

altho' the latother district courts to their respective circuit original juris

diction of a cir: courts ; notwithstanding that the district court of Main has all the original jurisdiction of a circuit court.

cuit coart.

CHARLES ALEXANDER v. THE MAYOR AND

COMMONALTY OF ALEXANDRIA.

ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Co- The corporelumbia, sitting at Alexandria, to reverse a judgment dria has power of that court rendered against the plaintiff in to tax the lots crror on motion, for taxes due to the defendant in and lands of

non-resiilents. error for paving the streets in Alexandria.

It is not neces. Vol. Y.

А

[ocr errors]

correc

ALESANDER A bill of exceptions stated that the plaintiff below
MAYOR.Sc.

produced and read to the court the following acts

of the general assembly of Virginia, viz., “ An act sary that the for incorporating the town of Alexandria in the Hola should be county of Fairfax, and the town of Winchester in the

1 hose taxes county of Frederick,” passed October 4th, 1779, cannot be re: by which it is enacted that “ The mayor, recorder, covered by mo- aldermen and common councilmen shall have power the case of * to erect and repair work-houses, houses of person holding tion, and prisons and other public buildings for the no other pro- benefit of the said town; and to make by-laws and

the ordinances for the regulation and good government

of the said town,” not repugnant, &c. (" and to as-
sess the inhabitants for the charge of repairing the
streets and highways,) to be observed and perform-
ed by all manner of persons residing within the same,
under reasonable penalties and forfeitures, to be levi-
ed by distress and sale of the goods of the offenders
for the public benefit of the said town.'

perty in

town.

Also the act of 1786, “ To extend the limits of the town of Alexandria,” by which it is enacted that the limits of that' town “ shall extend to and include as well the lots formerly composing the said town as those adjoining thereto which have been and are improved.

[ocr errors]

Also the act of December 16th, 1796,"Concerning the town of Alexandria," by which it is enacted" That it shall and may be lawful for the mayor and commonalty of the town of Alexandria to recover of and from all and every person or persons holding land within the limits of the said town, and who have no other properly wilnin the said town on which the taxes or assessments imposed on such property for paving the strects thercin can be levicd, the amount of such taxes or assessments by motion in the court of the county or corporation where such person or persons reside ; provided that such person or per3ons have ten days' previous notice of such motion, and the amount of the taxes or assessments due from him, her or them. And provided also that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to empower the court to give judgment against any person or persons residing out of the limits of the corporation

« PreviousContinue »