The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1806-01-16
Danrttie 1n.eIIigen:r.
RALEIGH. On c) January 6.


The Circuit Court of the United States 20,
THIS d'hriet, opened its ftilion ON MONDAY Ian
Preient the Chief Juftice Marfhals and lady,
Porter. Jug
On Friday morning the Court again entered
upon the important caufe of the Devices OF
Earl Granville VS.. Joliah collus (Diekenfun se,,
Alien, the other two defendants, beinp decent
| ed 1t will he recollected that the demurrer
TO the evidence which was offered by the coun
irifor the plaintiff at June term, 1904. & which
at the next term. the defendants moved fl,onid
be discharged and repitaden or,'ered, (hu
the confederation of which was referved ur,il
the fucceeding tcrr) when the demurrer, &c.
was ordered to ne truck out, and An ala, ps.
nire faeiaJ awarded. AT this court, therefore.
a jury was impa,neled and charged with TIE
cauie, and Mr.. Cation, one of the coupftJ for
the plaintiffs. opened It in his uiial elno,, n. g.
'mpr Iiiye manner, Eating to the court a d Jury
me Se'dence upon which the plaintiffs rrited
their title TO the lands in. eueaion. He was fol-.
lowed by Mr.. Cameron, in behalf of the Je.
'eadant, who brieA. Rated the feveraI grounds
on which he relied to fupport his rivht to theft
lands. Mr. Cation then went at full length in
to the merits of the caufe, recitnr all the
grounds ut argument which had been argued a,
former term, infting on their validity. Ee
was particularly impreffive In his addrefs TO the
jury, ianented the critical fituation in which
they food, their prejudices and the interrt, of
taemftlves and neighbours, perhaps, being on
one hide, and the merits of the caufe on the o.
ther. To efcape from this delicate fitua,ion,
ne very ftrongly advi!cd them to decline finding
a general verdict, as they, being men of plain
underftandjngs, could not be fuppofed to he ac-
quainted with all the auctions of law arifinr on
the Gale, but give fpscial verdict only as IL,
the facts, and leave the caufe to be Judged BY
the proper Tribunal, the court
MT. Cation was followed by Mr.. Cameron
and Mr.. Baker, for the defendant, who repro-
hated, in ievere terms, the attempt made by the
plaintiffs council, after bringing their carte 70
jury, to perfuade them into a belief that they
were incompetent to the deciiian of!iti they
were at a lois to account for this condute, en-
cePt II arofe from difruft that their verdict
would be aga'nff them, and from de(iye to
place the deciion of their caufe in other hands,
VIZ. in the Judges of the Supremc Court at
Warrington city, who, however wife and up
right they may be, could not be fuppofed to be
70 we'll acquainted with the laws, and the de-
cihons of the courts of this Rate, as our own
Jadges. Theycautionedt the Jury aeanft infer
ing tins addrefs to their confciencies and fears.
10 have the intended effect upon them, and
charged them to perform their duty as honefi
and independent men.
After Mr. Cameron and Mr.. Baker had fpok
en- al comfortable length, Col. Alexander Mar
I'M role, ana aiked leave OF the Court to fpeak
~ an Hmionf Cnri.s, in behalf of the defendants.
Leave being given, he addrefIed the court and
Jury at comfortable length. When he far down
candles having been introduced) Mr.. Harris
fusReited the propriety of the COURTS adjourn
ing 't,li next day, as the court and Jury muf
hr greatly fatigaed, and it would take till mid
night to hnifh the caufe.
Judge Por:er (the Chief Jufice having de-
ci'ned TO give an opinion in this caufe, had lef,
the city, faid, if the adjournment was wifbed
ny the counfcl OF bob iides, he would confert
tot; if not, he would fit until the cauSe was
fnfed.
The court adjourned.
Saturday morning, at the opening of the
court, Mr. Harris rofe and replied on the part {
the pla'ntf. The pl1int:f' s council prayed the
judge 70 charge the jury in their favour on the
ieveral grounds Of defence made by the coun-
iei for the defendant, Judge Porter then deli
Vered ms opinion to the Jury, on each point
made IN the canfe in favorr of the ciefendan,:
to which oplnion the plaintiff counfsI tend red
exceptions and the defendants countel OBJ.
Jected, but they were at length allowed NV the
court. The Jury re.ir4d, and after fone time.
returned with general verdict in favour of the
defendants. They were then charged 10 the
i"t pI'uGh. aealhU generals Davie and JOnec,
and the lame proceedings had as in the Other
capie. The court 6gned tie executions, by
which means the opinion cve.cd 20 the iury
wi'l he brought before the Supreme Court by
the plaintiffs -
The plaintiffs relcd their cauft on the follow.
| ing f1tts, viz.
That they had an undcuh;ed title TO the land
before the 4th of July l776, by virtue O tie
| different grants made to- the Lords Projectors
OF Carolina by the kings of Grcat-Britain that
their rights were indiyidual and not loyereipn.
and con!rquently not deftroved by the revolati.
on, the change Of government, or any of the
laws made after that tire by virtue of the fove.
reigPty exercifed by North-carolina.
The council for the defendants made fhe fol.
| lowing points; That by the revelation IN.
plaintiffs were diveftcd of their right, and the
land in queftion became the property of the
tate that by the s5th fiction of the Declara-
ton of Rights, thefe lands are declared to he
the property of the people of this Rate, to he
held by them in foyereignty, thereby deftroying
the plaintiffs right; that this right, if not before
taken away or loft, was forfeited and divefted by
the conhication and entry laws Of this Rate ;
that the plaintiffs are aliens, and therefore can
not hold lands in this tate and that the plain-
tlffs are barred Of recovery by the acts of limi-
tation
1 We learn that the difcufI,on &c ,b;,,.,,i,. -,