whether the publications of the defendant are libels; and if they view them in the light we do, they will have no hesitation in pronouncing them to be such. Libels are destructive both of publie and private happiness, manifestly tend to breaches of the peace, and are good causes of forfeiture of a recognizance to keep the peace or of good behavior. They merit every discouragement, to which they may be legally subjected by a court and jury. Verdict for the commonwealth.

FRANCIS ANDRE against PHILIP CARE.
ETIENNE MALESPINE against Same.
XOUX DE SOUCHE against Same.

A ship's agent in a foreign port a witness to prove the shippers of the goods.
Where French property has been covered in an American bottom, without the knowl-
edge of the captain or his owner, but with the assent of the ship's agent, the party is
entitled to the net proceeds of the sales of the property.

THESE Suits were brought for the proceeds of certain goods shipped by the plaintiff respectively, at Port de Paix, in the schooner Mary, owned by the defendant, whereof Samuel Casson was commander, who arrived in Philadelphia on the 15th July 1796. The schooner was addressed to the care of Anthony Lama liere, at Porte de Paix; who, not being able to procure a full freight for her back to Philadelphia, obtained sundry sugars and coffee from the plaintiffs on freight, for which the captain gave receipt. But in order to cover and secure the property, and induce the captain to believe that the same belonged to his owner, the different hogsheads and casks were marked P. C., and this was proved to be the usage of the island of St. Domingo, when French property was intended to be covered in American bottoms.

his

To prove these different facts, the deposition of Lamaliere, the schooner's agent, was offered in evidence, but the same was objected to by the defendant's counsel. They contended, that though in common cases a factor was a witness, yet here he being responsible to the plaintiffs severally, ought to have had their releases.

The plaintiffs answered: Lamaliere acted as agent of the schooner or owner. He is not even concerned in the question trying, nor can these verdicts be given in evidence either for or against him, in any other suits.

Per cur. A factor or agent is a witness to prove a sale of goods for his principal; (1 Atky. 47. 3 Wils. 40. 3 Term Rep. 27.2 Dall. 301) even though he is to have for himself what

ever money he can procure for them for himself, beyond a certain sum. 2 H. Bla. 520. A porter, for the sake of trade, may prove the delivery of goods; (Bull. Ni. Pri. 284, 4th ed.) and the ship's agent is surely as little exceptionable as the porter.

The defendant resisted the demands of the plaintiffs, on the ground, that the sugars and coffee had been shipped by one Peter Changeur, who was indebted to him largely, and that he had applied the moneys arising from the sales to the discharge of his own demand. But the facts, on the evidence, appeared to be clearly otherwise.

The counsel for the defendant, then urged, that the plaintiffs were only entitled to the prime cost of the goods, and not to the profits arising on the sales thereof here, the same being covered French property, without the knowledge of the defendant or his captain, which might have subjected the schooner to capture by the British.

By the court. There is no colour for the defendant receiving these profits. The goods were shipped with the knowledge of the schooner's agent, and conformably to the usage of the port. The plaintiffs are entitled to the nett proceeds and interest, at least, from the time of commencing their different actions.

Verdicts for the plaintiffs accordingly.

Messrs. Ingersoll and Du Ponceau, pro quer.
Messrs. Rawle and Hallowell, pro def.

EDMUND MILNE against REMPUBLICAM.

Where one pays money properly chargeable against the state, he is entitled to interest from the time of payment; but in common cases, a demand must be made on the legislature, before they can be charged with interest.

THIS action was brought in pursuance of an act of assembly authorizing the suit, passed 16th March 1798. (4. St. Laws, 238.)

The plaintiff on the 30th May 1781, bought 75 acres of land, late the property of John Robinson, in Whitpaine township, Philadel phia county, for 7157. from the agents of confiscated estates, the said John having been declared an attainted traitor. The premises were incumbered with the payment of two small annuities, and certain privileges, under the last wills of the grandfather and father of the said John Robinson, which were not known at the time of the sale.

The plaintiff had made certain payments thereon, and was chargeable for some other sums, and compensation for the whole was sought for in the present suit. The plaintiff's demand on the legislature was made in 1797.

Mr. M. Levy, for the plaintiff. The public agents have been guilty of a default which is imputable to the state. Notice should have been given of these incumbrances, which existed on record; and the commonwealth are subjected equally to the payment of interest, as an individual, from the times the respective sums became due. They make profits by investing the public money in the funded debt of the United States and, Pennsylvania bank stock and where they delay payment of a just debt ought to make compensation. The refusal of interest injures good morals, promotes law suits, and is particularly prejudicial to a commercial country. He relied on the following authorities:-Dougl. 361. 2 Bl. Rep. 761. 3 Wils. 266. 2 Burr. 1008. 7 Term. Rep. 124. 1 Bro. Cha. Rep. 359, 375, 384.

Mr. M'Kean, attorney general for the state, insisted that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest; at least for no longer period than he had made a demand on the legislature. Strictly, he is not entitled to compensation, except for the moneys he has actually paid; but this is not insisted on, where the money clearly appears to be due on the incumbrances. If his claims had been just, he would long ago have been compensated therefor; but he now seeks an advantage, from his own neglect, in not demanding a state debt, which in the case of an individual, would have been barred by the act of limitations.

By the court. The payment of the principal sums does not appear to be disputed. For such sums as the plaintiff has paid and show his receipts, which are properly chargeable against the state, let interest be computed thereon, from the times of the dates respectively. As to the rest, interest is only due from the state, from the time of the demand on the legislature.

Verdict pro quer. accordingly, for $481

RICHARD SIMPSON lessee of WILLIAM WILLINCK, NICHOLAS VAN STAPHORST, CHRISTIAN V. ENGHEN, HENDRICK VOLLENHOVER, and RUTGER JEAN SCHIMMELPENNICK against ROBERT MORRIS and JOHN NICHOLSON.

Under the act of 8th April 1785, a warrant dated in 1792, shall be preferred to a later one in 1793, though the latter was first delivered to the district surveyor if the same was not actually surveyed when the oldest warrant came to his hand, and the party was ready with his hands and provisions for the survey.

Different constructions of the law of 8th April 1785.

EJECTMENT for 80,000 acres of land, in Lycoming county.

Two suits were brought in one of which the lessors declared as joint-tenants, in the other, as tenants in common. They came on to trial at Williamsport, on the 22d October last, before Shippen Chief Justice and Brackenridge, Justice, when a verdict was found for the defendants, in the Circuit Court.

This was a motion for a new trial, founded on the following facts, which appeared in evidence.

The plaintiff claimed under seventy four warrants, dated 13th and 13th December 1792. Forty of these warrants were dated on the latter day, and numbered 3000 to 3040 inclusive. Thirty two of these issued in the names of Herman Le Roy and John Linkland; and the remaining eight in the names of William Willinck, and the other lessors of the plaintiff, usually called the Holland company. The defendants claimed under sixty warrants, dated 30th August 1793. Thirty thereof, numbered 4016 to 4045 inclusive, issued in the name of John Nicholson, and the other thirty, numbered 4046 to 4075 inclusive, issued in the name of Robert Morris. These forty warrants of the Holland company were directed to John Canan, one of the district surveyors, but were not entered in the books of his office. He wrote a letter to John Hanna his assistant or deputy, in these words :—

"Hartslog, 25th July 1793." "Mr. Wallis is now at my house, ho sets off this day for his camp at Sinnemahoning. He says, there is a large number of warrants directed to me, a number of which will be directed to some of the other disctricts. As I cannot attend at this time in the district, I hereby authorize you to re-direct such warrants as have been directed to me, as the owners of the said warrants or their agents may from time to time call on you for and generally to represent me in the district when I am absent. Copy of the certificate or direction, you have on the other side. A B having certified to me, that he cannot find land in my district for this warrant to his satisfaction, I

do hereby certify, that it

has not been executed in any district.As witness my hand the day of, &c. For John Canan. John Hanna. Then under the surveyor general's direction to the deputy surveyor, write thus:-To C D execute this warrant, and make return thereof according to law.

For John Canan.

John Hanna."

In consequence of this letter, and the power therein contained, the said John Hanna re-directed these forty warrants in manner aforesaid, to William P. Brady, the surveyor of the district, No. 5, in which district the lands in question lie, and delivered them to Thomas Hamilton, the agent of the Holland company. On the 1st September 1793, Hamilton, tendered them to the said William P. Brady, who refused to receive them, alleging that they were illegally directed to him.

On the 4th October 1793, the agent of the company obtained a regular,formal re-direction of the warrants from the said John Canan and on the 11th of the same month, again tendered them to Brady; but he then also denied to receive them, on the ground of his having been previously suspended from his office a week before, on some charge made against him: but he being afterwards acquitted of the charge and restored to his office, he received the warrants on the 20th June 1794.

The defendants original warrants lay in the surveyor general's office undirected, till the 14th November 1793. But John Barron, & clerk of the surveyor general, having carried up into the country, notes of them, procured copies of those warrants to be struck off at a printing press in Northumberland, and directed them in the name of the surveyor general to the said William P. Brady, and delivered them to him on the 10th September 1793, at Sunbury, requiring him to execute them. The two sets of warrants being thus in the hands of Brady, he afterwards made the surveys of the lands in controversy, at the joint expense of the lessors of the plaintiff and of the defendants, with the mutual assistance of their hands and stocks of provisions, and declared that the board of property should determine, who were of right entitled thereto.

The judgment of the board of property, was in favor of the now defendants. The chief contest before them, was whether the defendants' warrants had regularly issued, before they were directed by John Barron, at Sunbury. They decided, that the warrants had been sent to the governor, on the 30th August 1793, and considered it highly probable, that the sixty warrants were signed and sealed, before the offices were closed by reason of the yellow fever.