that it was generally known among the members, that there had been excesses, before the report was made.]

The councils passed the account, and also an ordinance, appropriating a certain sum to indemnify the register in these expenditures.

On the part of the state, many of the most respectable citizens of Baltimore were produced; James A. Buchanan, James Calhoun, Henry Payson, John Shrim, Baltzer Schæffer, John Hillen, Jacob Small, Thomas Tenant, William Lorman, all democratic republicans (except two) honest, liberal and intelligent men, who had served in the city councils for several years, and had had every opportunity of knowing Mr. Coale's conduct, unanimously concurred in giving a testimony the most unequivocal and honourable to his character. Mr. Buchanan said emphatically, in the conclusion of his evidence, "Nay I most sOLEMNLY and RELIGIOUSLY BELIEVE, that Mr. Coale is INCAPABLE of a DISHONEST ACTION." Each of the three gentlemen who defended the editor, and who were of his party bore the same testimony to the unimpeachable integrity of his character. Indeed, the very ordinance making provision for the expenditure was found to be in the hand-writing of one of Irvine's counsel, who at that time was a member of the first branch. Even Stouffer, the witness for the defendant, acknowledged that he did not believe Mr. Coale was a dishonest man, or had wished to appropriate public money to his private purposes.

The force of such a combination of testimony was irresistible. It flashed conviction on the mind of every man, who was not resolved not to be convinced. Baptis Irvine was found guilty of having published " A FALSE, SCANDALOUS AND MALICIOUS LIBEL!" And yet this man, branded as he is with the odious epithet of LIAR, by the solemn verdict of a jury of the country, TEN of whom are of the party to which he pretends to belong, dares, in defiance of all law, order and decency, to continue his wicked and malicious libels, and to asperse the jury who pronounced the verdict, and the judges who determined the punishment.

People of Maryland, are you prepared for these things? Will you tamely submit to this prostration of the dignity of your courts, this violent assault upon the independence of your juries, this most atrocious conspiracy against the good order of your society? Of what use is the trial by jury, if the jurymen are to be held up to scorn and detestation, as violators of their oaths, the witnesses as perjurers, and the judges as partial, vindictive and dependent? Who is it that thus violates the sober decorum which your laws enjoin? An emigrant wretch, who has not been six months among you, a part of which time he has spent in gaol, as a punishment for his outrageous conduct.

Since the trial, he has in his own paper, published what he calls the testimony, and to disseminate the poison more widely, the whole of it has been impudently republished with alterations and amendments by its author. I pledge myself that he cannot prove one single evidence as there given, to be correct. Every fact which is of the slightest consequence to Mr. Coale is concealed, and every circumstance, opinion or conjecture, which can be tortured into a suspicion against his integrity, is brought in to suit his infernal purpose.

But these remarks have already been extended to a greater length than I had intended. I beg every one who reads the publications of the Whig on this subject, to remember these facts, which are an abundant answer to his columns of wilful and deliberate falsehoods.

1st. The editor of the Whig has been found guilty of having published " a false scandalous and malicious libel" on the character of Mr. Coale.

2d. Ten of the jurymen are republicans, and all the judges, and all the witnesses, except two, are of that party.

3d. Every member of the city council, who was produced on the trial testified, that he believed Mr. Coale to be a man of irreproachable integrity. Even Mr. Stouffer who, as far as strong prejudices excited by personal feelings could go, endeavoured to bolster up the rotten defence of the editor, said he never believed, that Mr. Goale had defranded the public, and that he was an honest man.

4th. If the register had been guilty of fraud, the members of the council have not had sense enough to discover these false accounts, or they have countenanced it in violation of their oaths of office.

And I beg every one to ask himself the question: Who has had the best means of ascertaining the accuracy of the register's accounts; the editor of the Whig in gaol, or the members of the city council, who have daily and constant access to all his books, and the jury who were employed three or four days in hearing their testimony? The former has accused and still does accuse Edward J. Coale, of being guilty of the knavery of keeping false accounts, and the latter have unanimously declared that he is an honest man, and that he has not kept false accounts. Whom will ye believe?

In Chancery.

MICHAELMAS TERM, 1769.

Scott v. Scott.

INJUNCTION. The court of chancery will not grant an injunction to stay an execution on a judgment obtained by surprise: but it is not precluded from exercising an equity jurisdiction over the verdict.

B

ILL to stay proceedings at law by injunction and set aside a judgment obtained by surprise.

Lord Camden. When the judgment is completed by a service of execution, it is too late for this court to interfere in the manner prayed; but though this court cannot grant an injunction, yet the equity of it is not altogether restrained. And it would be strange if was, for by such means the plaintiff would be enabled to benefit himself by his own wrong and recover against the justice and equity of his case without any power to control him. In this case, the verdict was obtained by surprise, and though the court cannot grant an injunction, the defendant being taken in execution, yet the verdict ought and must be set aside. It is necessary, however, in all such cases, to prove or give probable grounds to believe the verdict was by surprise; for if the party suffer judgment to pass against him by neglect he cannot have relief in this court for a matter which he might have availed himself of at law. [Ex notis m'ri Cooke.]

:

Court of King's Bench.

MICHAELMAS TERM, 1805.

Anderson, Bart. v. the Royal Exchange Assurance Company.

NOTICE. Corn was insured free from average, unless general, from Waterford to Liverpool. The vessel was run on shore at Waterford on the 28th of January, and was wholly under water at high water. Part of the corn was taken out by the insurers and kilndried, and the assured received the net produce. On the 18th of February, 21 days after the loss, the assured gave notice of abandonment, which the insurers refused to accept. Held, that the notice of abandonment was too late to entitle the assured to recover as for a total loss.

THIS HIS was an action brought to recover a total loss upon a policy of insurance on a cargo of wheat by the ship Fanny, on a voyage from Waterford to Liverpool, to which action the defendants pleaded the general issue. The cause came on to be tried at the sittings after Hilary term, 1805, before the right hon. Edward lord Ellenborough, and a special jury, when a verdict was found for the plaintiffs, damages 9151. 9s. 8d. and costs, 40s. subject to the opinion of the court on the following

case:

The ship in question was loaded at Waterford in the month of January, 1804, with 2406 barrels of wheat in bulk. The term barrel is descriptive of measure and quantity only. The policy in question was effected on the account of Andrew Comber, of Liverpool, merchant, upon 696 barrels of the said wheat, his property. The same were shipped by Thomas Nevins, who acted, as the agent of the said Andrew Comber at Waterford, and were of the value of the sum insured, that is to say, the sum