The defendant then submitted to answer interrogatories, and offered to give security for his appearance.

By the court. Let him enter into recognizance, himself in 300 dollars, and one sufficient surety in the like sum, conditioned for his appearance de die in diem to answer, &c. And in the mean while it behoves the defendant to consider well, what atonement he will make to the court as well as Mr. Bayard for the gross injury done to him by this publication.

RESPUBLICA against THOMAS PASSMORE.

THE interrogatories having been filed in the prothonotary's office, the defendant answered them in substance as follows upon his oath: He believed that there was no suit depending on the 8th September last, and referred to the records.

He denied that he had the most distant intention to prejudice the public mind in his favor" or to treat with disrespect the judicial authority of his country, for which he had always entertained the highest respect. He felt much irritated when he first saw the exceptions, and in the moment of his heat and passion, published the expressions he experienced, without allowing himself time to reflect on the harshness of the manner in which they were conceived, or the extent of their application.

He thinks well of Andrew Petit, and is sorry for the generality of his expressions which might tend to implicate him; and though he thought at that time, and still thinks, that he was extremely ill used by Andrew Bayard, certainly would not have adopted the measure o publishing, if the impetuosity of the moment had not hurried him into it."

The defendant appearing in court towards the end of the term, Mr. Levy in his behalf contended, that he possessed the right of palliating his conduct, and extenuating his offence by every means in his power. The interrogatories are administered to him for the better information of the court, with respect to the circumstances of the contempt. 4 Bl. Com. 287.

Mr. Dallas for the prosecution urged, that each step taken by the defendant was but an aggravation of his first offence; his answers are drawn up in such a manner, as to add fresh insult to Mr. Bayard, whom he so grossly injured before. He has VOL. III.

281

not extenuated his offence, but has aggravated it. He could not but know that his publication was a very improper act; but if his intentions were even innocent, the justice of the country and of the court requires, that he shall stand committed. 1 Wms. 675. Ignorance of the law will not justify an improper publication. 2 Vez. 521. He also cited 1 Dall. 328. Wallace's Circ. Rep. 78. Mosel. 250, and Vern. and Scriv. 295, 296, 299. Where defendant submits to an attachment, the prosecutor has not a right to insist on exhibiting interrogatories to him. [Sed vide, 4 Burr. 2105, and 5 Term Rep. 362, contra.]

Shippen, C. J. However libellous the publication complained of may be, we have no cognizance of it in this summary mode, unless it be a contempt of the court. 2 Atky. 469. But we are unanimously* of opinion, that in point of law it is such a contempt, and readily concur with Lord Hardwicke, that "there cannot be any thing of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety, both to themselves, and their characters." Ib. 471. If the minds of the public can be prejudiced by such improper publications, before a cause is heard, justice cannot be administered. The defendant has set at nought the advice we gave him when we ordered the attachment. He has made no atonement whatever to the person whom he has so deeply injured, and he can only blame himself for the consequences.

The judgment of the court is, that the defendant pay a fine of 50 dollars to the commonwealth, and be imprisoned in the debtor's apartment for the space of 30 days; and afterwards, until the fine and costs are paid.

SAMUEL MEEKER and WILLIAM COCHRAN against SAMUEL JACKSON.

There may be a recovery against the acceptor on a bill of exchange lost or mislaid. The existence of the bill being once established, the plaintiff may prove the loss of it by his own oath.

SUIT against the defendant as acceptor of exchange, drawn on him by Daniel Smith, for 165 dollars, payable at 60 days sight, to David Deaderick or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiffs. The bill was said to be accepted on the 30th April 1795, and to have been since lost or mislaid.

It was proved by the plaintiffs' clerk, that in April 1795, he entered this bill in their waste book, and transferred it to their bill book and numbered it; that it was indorsed by Deaderick,

*Present also Brackenridge, Justice

but he knew not whether it was accepted. The letter book of the plaintiffs was shown, whereby it appeared, that the 8th March 1798, they had written to the defendant, and urged the payment of the bill, but mentioned their loss of it. To this he returned an answer dated the 16th of the same month, asserting that he had paid the greater part of the bill to David Allison, under a letter of attorney, but promised to pay them the balance due.

Meeker, one of the plaintiffs was offered to be sworn, to prove the loss of the bill, and the court allowed it, saying, the existence of the bill having been proved, he was a witness to the single point of its loss, from the necessity of the case, and so had been the adjudications.

Mr Hallowel for the defendant, observed, that if the bill had been produced, the hands-writing of the payee and acceptor should be proved on the trial.

The court said, these facts whereon the jury must judge. The former had been proved, and the latter might be inferred from the defendant's letter. But the plaintiffs must indemnify the defendant against the bill.

The jury gave a verdict pro quer. for $240 14 cents, without leaving the bar.

Mr. Hare, pro quer. cited Finch's Rep. 301. Marius 42.

JOHN MOORE against JOHN E. SERVENING.

Same plaintiff against the defendants in thirty one other actions.

The inspectors of the gaol of the county of Philadelphia are bound by the law of 4th April 1792, to furnish German passengers arrested and in the debtor's apartment, with blankets and fuel.

THE different defendants were in custody in the debtor's apartment, under process from the Court of Common Pleas, returnable to next March term. They were German passengers, and after being detained on board the vessel for thirty days, were arrested for their freight.

On motion of Mr. Rawle, in behalf of the owners of the vessel, a rule was made to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to the inspectors of the gaol of the county of Philadelphia, requiring them to furnish blankets and fuel for the persons above named being

poor confined debtors, pursuant to the provisions of the act of assembly passed the 4th April 1792.

Mr. M. Levy appeared in behalf of the inspectors, and urged, that the 2d section of the act of 4th April 1792, (3 St. Laws, 237,) respected only those prisoners who were not otherwise provided for by law, "such as are incapable of procuring fuel and blankets, by reason of their poverty." The law of 14th February 1729-30, §§ 3, 4, and 5, had subjected the importers to these expenses. 1 St. Laws, 252. The defendants are vagrants and vagabonds, they will not subsist themselves by their labor. This is a new and extraordinary case, and comes before the court at the instance of the owners of the vessel. But it having been formerly determined here, that the acts for the relief of insolvent debtors, do not extend to the cases of German passengers, it seems most reasonable, that the importer should furnish the blankets and fuel, and add those expenditures to the freight money. The city already sustains more than her portion of taxes.

Mr. Rawle ê contra contended, that if the present case would have been embraced by the act of 1729-30, it was superseded by the provisions of the act of 4th April 1792. But it was neither within the words nor spirit of the former act. The passengers were neither convicts under indentures, nor poor and impotent, nor idle and vagrant persons. They came over freely and voluntarily; and the laws of the state encourage the importation of such men in a variety of instances.

This case is clearly within the preamble of the law of 4th April 1792. They are "confined in the debtors' apartment, and unable to procure fuel or covering for the winter season," and are clearly within the words of the second section, and are therefore entitled to the relief prayed for.

By the court. If the citizens of Philadelphia are subjected to unreasonable taxes, the legislature only is competent to redress the mischief. But apprehending as we do, that the case of these German passengers falls within the terms and meaning of the law of 4th April 1792, we are constrained to make the rule absolute.

JOSEPH GALLOWAY against ISAAC W. MORRIS, ISRAEL W. MORRIS, THOMAS GREAVES, and THOMAS MIFFLIN.

Master of a ship no witness to prove the propriety of his discharge of a mate in a foreign port, without a release from the owners. Qu. Whether such release must not be by all the owners? Such grounds of discharge must be very strong to justify it.

A privilege of 3 tons or $500 in lieu of it, payable at a foreign port to a mate, in addition to his wages, is insurable property when laid out in goods at such port. A mariner loses his wages on a capture from the last port of delivery, and during the half of the time of his continuance there.

THIS was a suit brought by a mate against his former owners. The declaration stated four counts.

1. That the defendants agreed to receive the plaintiff on board their ship Ariel, as chief mate in her voyage from Philadelphia to Canton, and back again, at the rate of $40 per month; to allow him 3 tons privilege, and in defect of this privilege, to pay him $500 by their supercargo; to permit him to invest $3000, and have a state The 2d count laid the special assumpsit with some variation. 3d count for mate's wages; and the 4th, a general count for money had and received.

room.

The written agreement recited in the first count, was dated 31st January 1799, and the facts on the evidence, appeared as follows: The Ariel sailed from Philadelphia, under the command of captain Jacob Coates, and arrived at Canton on the 10th August 1799. The captain was dissatisfied with the appointnent of the plaintiff as chief mate, and wished that a Mr. Clarke, who went out as second mate, had filled the higher office. Hence a coolness appeared evidently to subsist between them, though the plaintiff was generally thought well of on board, and deemed an able seamen, and experienced navigator. All the witnesses agreed, that during the voyage, in the straits of Sunda, the plaintiff was much intoxicated on his birth night, during the latter part of his watch, and unfit for duty. Two of the hands on board, (the third mate and Cooper,) swore, that period wherein he appeared to them incapacitated or drunk during the voyage, and that the captain had agreed to overlook it. But the two supercargoes declared, that he was intoxicated twice or oftener, and that they felt apprehensions from his conduct; though the captain did not complain of him to his face, but suffered him to keep the log book. Captain Coates was offered by the defendants as a witness. It was objected, that he was not a competent witness, to prove the propriety of his discharging the chief mate; and the case of Robinett v. the Exeter, in 2 Robins. Admty. Cases, 266, (American edit. 221,) was relied on, as being expressly in point. The counsel for the defendants admitted, that he could not be received as a witness, without a release

this was the only