on leaving the United States. It is enough to show that the defendant was knowingly concerned in fitting out or arming the vessel with the unlawful intent, although that intent was defeated after the vessel sailed. United States v. Quincy, 6 Pet. 445. 6. But if, when the vessel sailed, the defendant had no fixed intention to employ her as a privateer, but only a wish so to employ her if, on her arrival in a foreign port, he could obtain funds for the purpose of arming her, he is not guilty. Ib. 7. Under the act of June 14, 1797 (1 Sts. 520), it was unlawful for citizens of the United States to cruise against Spain under a commission from one of the new South American states. The Bello Corrunes, 6 Wheat. 152; The Con Contraband-Conveyance by, un- ception, Id. 235. See CONTRABAND, 4. Property in Enemy's Country — RemovalVessel in Belligerent Control. See CAPTURE LAWFUL PRIZE. Property Liability to Capture. See CAPTURE LAWFUL PRIZE. 8. Forfeiture under the neutrality act of June 5, 1794 (1 Sts. 381), attaches at the moment of the commission of the offence. Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246. 9. Section 7 of that act does not authorize the president to employ civil officers to make seizures. Ib. 10. A pretended foreign state, as yet unrecognized by our government or the government to which such new state belonged, is not "any for Right in Navigable River, one Bank of which eign prince or state," within the meaning of that it occupies. See BLOCKADE, 4. NEUTRALITY What constitutes a Breach Selling Armed Vessels to Foreign Powers — Augmentation of Force of Foreign Vessel - Fitting out Vessel to cruise against Powers at Peace with United States. It is not a violation of the neutrality laws of the United States to sell to a foreigner a vessel built in this country, although suited to privateering and having some equipments calculated for war but frequently used by merchant ships. Moodie v. The Alfred, 3 Dal. 307. 2. The mere replacement of the guns of a foreign privateer in a neutral port is not an augmentation of her force. Moodie v. The Phoebe Anne, 3 Dal. 319. And see Geyer v. Michel, 3 Dal. 285. 3. A substantial increase of the crew of a foreign belligerent vessel in one of our ports, we being neutral, is a breach of our neutrality. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283. 4. A vessel armed and manned in one of our ports, and sailing thence to a belligerent port, with intent thence to sail on a cruise with such crew and armament, and so departing, and cap turing belligerent property, violates our neutrality. The Gran Para, 7 Wheat. 471. 5. Under the act of April 20, 1818 (3 Sts. 448), to convict on an indictment for being concerned in fitting out a vessel with intent, etc., it is not necessary to prove that the vessel was armed, or in a condition to commit hostilities, act. Ib. NEW PROMISE - Statute Limitations — What | NEW TRIAL Promise sufficient, etc. See LIMITATION - continued. been done. McLanahan v. Universal Insurance - EXCEPTIONS AND IN- Co., 1 Pet. 170. TERRUPTIONS, 68 et seq. NEW TRIAL 7. Without laying down any general rule, the court, on the affidavits of two jurors, that while What constitutes—When granted they were impanelled they read a newspaper re port of the preceding evidence, but without effect upon their verdict, held that there was no ground for a new trial. United States v. Reid, 12 How. 361. 8. The only remedy for surprise in the introduction of evidence is by motion for a new trial. Mulhall v. Keenan, 18 Wal. 342. 9. A judgment in an action for personal injuries will be reversed where, the plaintiff being entitled to compensatory damages only, evidence was improperly admitted concerning his poverty and the number and ages of his children. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 451. 10. For the usurpation by the court of the func tions of the jury in weighing evidence, a new trial will be granted. Burdell v. Denig, 92 U. S. 716. 11. A new trial will be ordered where the charge was vague and misleading, conveying to the jury the impression that opinions given by witnesses were competent evidence, and failing to give due effect to the facts of the case. Loring v. Frue, 104 U. S. 223. 12. The remedy of a party against whom a verdict has been given on insufficient evidence is a motion for a new trial. Providence v. Babcock, 2. The granting or refusing of a new trial is matter of discretion, and not assignable for error. Henderson v. Moore, 5 Cranch, 11; Marine Insurance Co. v. Young, Id. 187; Barr v. Gratz, 4 Wheat. 213; Blunt v. Smith, 7 Wheat. 248; Zacharie v. Franklin, 12 Pet. 151; Doswell v. De la Lanza, 20 How. 29; Warner v. Norton, 20 How. 448; Pomeroy v. Indiana State Bank, 1|3 Wal. 240. Wal. 592; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wal. 160; Laber 13. In an action for money paid, where the v. Cooper, 7 Wal. 565; Home Insurance Co. v. defence was that the transactions were gambling Barton, 13 Wal. 603; Mulhall v. Keenan, 18 contracts, and the defendant, in testifying in his Wal. 342; Cambuston v. United States, 95 own behalf, said that he could not say that he had U. S. 285; Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. an understanding that the contracts were gamTwombly, 100 U. S. 78; Cairo & Fulton Rail-bling contracts, and there was no other evidence road Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120; Boogher v. New York Life Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 90; Terre Haute & Indiana Railway Co. v. Struble, 109 U. S. 381. 3. The rule applies to an order of a local appellate court affirming an order of the local inferior court refusing a new trial. Sparrow v. Strong, 4 Wal. 584. 4. Nothing in § 5, act of June 1, 1872 (17 Sts. 197), was intended to abrogate the rule. Newcomb v. Wood, 97 U. S. 581. 5. After the close of a term of the supreme court of the District of Columbia at which a final judgment was rendered on a verdict, and an appeal taken to the general term of the court, no bill of exceptions or case stated having been filed, a new trial cannot be granted on a case stated filed at a subsequent term by the justice before whom the trial was had. Coughlin v. District. of Columbia. 106 U. S. 7. 6. For what granted - Misconduct of Jury Admission of Eridence - Erroneous Instruction Verdict against Evidence.] A new trial should not be granted although some mistakes have been made, if, on the whole, the verdict be substantially right, and justice have VOL. II.11 in the case tending to show that they were, a verdiet for the plaintiff was not disturbed. Roundtree v. Smith, 108 U. S. 269. 14. Motion- Effect - Not a Waiver of Writ of Error.] A motion for a new trial is not a waiver of a writ of error, and a rule making it such can have effect only by requiring the party to make the waiver a matter of record before the hearing of the motion. United States v. Hodge, 6 How. 279. Circuit Court may not grant one after Rever- See APPEAL AND ERROR-PROCEEDINGS Court of Claims - Review by Supreme Court. Manda et seq. See FEDERAL COURTS-STATE LAWS, NEW TRIAL- continued. Ejectment in Colorado-One New Trial as of Right. See EJECTMENT PLEADING AND PRAC TICE, 34. Granting or refusing New Trial - Matter of NORTHWESTERN TERRITORY Discretion. French Settlers. NOTES Meaning of the Term NOTICE See DESCENT, 4. NIL DEBET - Improper Plea in Action of Debt -When. See NATIONAL BANK, 95. See BILLS AND NOTES. Acceptance of Guaranty — Guaran tor's Right to Notice. See GUARANTY, 18 et seq. Affecting Capture. See CAPTURE LAWFUL PRIZE. Agent Notice to, when Notice to Principal. See AGENCY, 75. Blockade Institution- Discontinuance. Deed-Notice, actual and constructive. See DEED REGISTRATION AND NOTICE. Dishonor Notice to Indorser. Dissolution of Partnership Notice, how given. See PARTNERSHIP, 88. Fraud affecting Conveyance. See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. Judicial-What Courts will notice. See EVIDENCE-JUDICIAL NOTICE. NUISANCE- What constitutes When Equity will interfere - Measure of Damages.] That is a nuisance which annoys and disturbs one in the possession of property, rendering its ordinary use and occupation physically uncomfortable to him. The law, in such case, affords redress in damages; and it makes no difference that both parties are corporations. Thus, a religious corporation may maintain an action against a railroad company for the erection in a city of an engine-house NUISANCE continued. and repair shop so near to the church building that the noise therefrom often renders it impossible for the preacher's voice to be heard, and the smoke and cinders often enter the church windows, to the great inconvenience and annoyance of the Worshippers; and this, although the work of the company is done as quietly as possible, and the chimneys are higher than municipal regulations require, and although the company has authority to bring its track within the city limits and to construct works necessary and expedient for the completion and maintenance of the road, the authority conferred being impliedly conditioned upon such a placing of the works as will not interfere with the rights of others, and justifying no invasion of such rights without compensation. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317. 2. A bridge across a navigable river cannot be treated as a nuisance, if by reason of a suitable draw it present no unreasonable obstruction to navigation. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. 3. A bridge over a navigable river constructed in accordance with authority conferred by congress and by the legislature of the state-the bridge, for instance, over the East River between New York and Brooklyn-is a lawful structure, and cannot be deemed a public nuisance, however much it may interfere with the public right of navigation and thereby affect the business of private persons - warehouse keepers, for instance on the banks of the river above the bridge. Miller v. New York, 109 U. S. 385. 4. A bill by an individual, praying for preven tive relief, in a case of public nuisance, must aver, and must be supported by proof of, some special injury to the plaintiff. Georgetown v. Alexandria Canal Co., 12 Pet. 91; Irwin v. Dixion, 9 How. 10; Miller v. New York, 109 U. S. 385. 5. In trespass on the case for a nuisance, whether the effect of the thing complained of is to injure the plaintiff's property is a question for the jury. Richardson v. Boston, 19 How. 263. 6. A court of equity, although it may entertain a case of contract, fraud, or trust concerning land lying in another jurisdiction, cannot restrain, or give compensation for, a nuisance or tort to real property so situated. Northern Indiana Railroad Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Co., 15 How. 233. 7. Equity will interfere to enjoin a public nuisance at the suit of a person or corporation sufferPennsylvania ing irreparable injury therefrom. v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. 8. In case of a nuisance by means of an unlawful obstruction, as of a navigable river, an injured party may resort to equity, the damage being continuous and not provable and computable by items, and so not reparable at law. Dixion, 9 How. 10; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. Irwin v. 9. If equity be asked to remove a structure which is in fact a nuisance, it will not stop to inquire whether the benefits accruing to a portion of the public are equivalent to the resulting injuries. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. 10. Courts of equity will enjoin private nuisances, in what cases. Parker v. Winnipiseogee Lake Cotton & Woollen Manufacturing Co., 2 Black, 545. 11. A court of equity can give relief on a bill by a private person for the abatement of a nuisance, only on proof of the nuisance as clear and satisfactory as would be necessary before a jury on trial on indictment for the same offence. Mississippi Missouri Railroad Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485. 12. For the abatement of a public nuisance, a bill in equity by a private person is now the ordinary remedy, instead of an information, which was formerly resorted to. Ib. 13. And such a bill will lie at suit of any such person alone, if he show special private injury beyond that to the public, without a joinder of others who have suffered a like injury, even though they are joint owners with him of property injured. Ib. 14. To a bill for the abatement of a nuisance, brought against the person who maintains it, other persons interested in the structure complained of are not necessary parties. Ib. 15. In an action by a church corporation for maintaining a nuisance, mere depreciation of the property is not the only element for consideration in estimating damages; the inconvenience and discomfort caused to the congregation may be considered. Baltimore & Potomac Railroad Co. v. Fifth Baptist Church, 108 U. S. 317. See PATENT INFRINGEMENT, 140. Entry of Judgment-When Matter of Discre tion, etc. See JUDGMENT RENDITION AND ENTRY. Taxation of Costs and filling Blank in Judg ment. See COSTS, 39. When Supreme Court will so affirm. See APPEAL AND ERROR-PROCEEDINGS ABOVE, 473. |