gate, Jenkins, Keehmle, Kerr, Lytle, M Bride, McComb, M'Farlane, Maclay, Mann, Marthall, Odenheimer, "Ogle, Patterson, Pearfon, Peebles, Pugh, Rhoads, Robinfon, Rofe, Rupert, Scheetz, Schneider, J. Smith, S. Smith, Spangler, Stauffer, Trevor, Turbett, Vance, Weirich, Wilfon, Witman, and Snyder, speaker.—57. NAYS.-Meffrs. Barclay, Bull, Carver, Coollbaugh, Cunningham, H. Davis, Findlay, Franklin, Hall, JohnRon, Kimmel, Lattimore, Miller, Mytinger, Milnor, Pennell, Porter, Reiley, Roberts, Shriver, Sloan, B. H. Smith, R. Smith, and White.- -24. So it was determined in the affirmative, and Meffrs. W. Maclay, Boileau, Engle, Kerr, Trevor, M. Davis, and Holgate, were appointed a committee to draft articles of impeachment. In the afternoon of the 223 of March, 1804, Mr. Maclay, from the committee appointed an the 20th inftant, to draft articles of impeachment, made report as follows: Article of accufation and impeachment against Edward: Shippen, Efquire, Chief Juftice, and Jafper Yeates, and Thomas Smith, Efquires, affiftant Juftices of the Supreme Court, of the Commonwealth of Pennfylvania, preferred by the House of Roprefentatives of the faid Commonwealth, in their name, and in the name of the people of Pennfylvania; and exhibited to the Senate of the faid Commonwealth. Article T. That the faid Edward Shippen, Efquire, Chief Juftice, and Jafper Yeates, and Thomas Smith, Efquires, affiftant Juftices of the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth of Pennfylvania, duly commiffioned and appointed, and acting in their official capacities, on the 18th day of September, A. D. 1802, granted a rule against Thomas Pallimore, of the city of Philadelphia, on the affidavits of Andrew Bayard and James Kitchen, to fhew caufe on the first day of the then next term, why an attachment should not iffue against him, the faid Thomas Paffmore, for a contempt, in confequence of the following publication, viz. The fubfcriber publicly declares, that Pettit and Bayard, of this city, merchants, and quibling underwriters, has bafely kept from the fubfcriber, for nine months, about five hundred dollars; and that Andrew Bayard, the partner of Andrew Pettit, did on the third or fourth inftant, go before John Infkeep, Efq. alderman, and fwore to that which was not true, by which the faid Pettit and Bayard is enabled to keep the fubfcriber out of his money for about three months longer; and the faid Bayard has meanly attempted to prevent others from paying the fubfcriber, about two thoufand five hundred dollars; but, in this mean dirty action he was disappointed in. I therefore do publicly declare, Andrew Bayard a lier, a rafchal, and a coward; and I do offer two and an half per cent. to any good perfon or perfons, to infure the folvency of Pettit and Bayard, for four months from this date. THOMAS PASSMORE. Philadelphia, Sept. 8th, 1804. That on the 8th of December, 1802, an attachment was awarded against the faid Thomas Paffmore, and he was bound with fureties, to appear from day to day, during the continuation of the Court, to anfwer fuch interrogatories as fhould be exhibited to him, and to abide the fentence of the Court. That interrogatories were accordingly exhibited to the faid Thomas Paffmore, which are as follow-together with the answers filed by the faid Thomas Paffmore to the fame, viz. In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Verfus Thomas Passmore. On attachment for contempt. Interrogatories exbibited to Thomas Passmore, the above named defendant. 1. Interrogatory-Was there an action depending in the Supreme Court of Pennfylvania, on the 8th day of September, 1802, wherein you were plaintiff, and Andrew Pettit, and Andrew Bayard, merchants and co-partners, trading under the firm of Pettit and Bayard, were defendants. If aye, when was fuch action inftitated, and is the fame ftill depending in the said Court. 2. Interrogatory-If fuch action was brought, and is ftill depending in the faid Court, ftate whether the fame was referred by confent of parties; whether the referees made report, and when; whether exceptions were filed to the report, by whom, and when; whether an affidavit was made by the faid Andrew Bayard, in fupport of the faid exceptions; when, and before whom the faid affidavit was made; and whether the faid exceptions and affidavit were filed in the faid Court, on or before the 8th day of September, 1802. 3 Interogatory-Perufe the paper filed in this court, purporting to be figned by you, dated Philadelphia, 8th September, 1802, whereupon the motion was made in this Court, for a rule to fhew caufe why an attachment fhould not iffue againk you for a contempt of the faid court, and declare whether the faid paper is written and fubfcribed by you, and when the fame was written and fubfcribed; and whether the faid paper fo written and fubfcribed was by you or by any other perfon, and who by your request and direction placed and affixed to a board in the exchangeroom, in the city tavern, in the city of Philadelphia, and attached to the faid board in the faid room, by wafers in the manner advertisements are there ufually pofted up and xed, 4. Interrogatory-If the faid paper was fubfcribed and written by you, and by you or by fome perfon by your request and direction placed and affixed as above mention, ed, ftate whether the declaration in the faid paper consained, viz: That Andrew Bayard, the partner of Andrew Pettit, did, on the third or fourth inftant, go before John Inskeep, Efq. alderman, and fwore to that which was not true,' refers to the faid affidavit taken and filed in this Court, by the faid Andrew Bayard, as aforefaid, in fupport of the faid exceptions filed to the faid report, of the referees in the faid action depending in this Court as aforefaid, between you as plaintiff, and the faid Pettit and Bayard, as defendants. (Copy) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Thomas Passmore. A. J. DALLAS. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, The anfwers of Thomas Paffmore, the examinant, to the feveral interrogatories filed on the part of the profecutor in this cafe. 1. Interrogatory-To the first interrogatory, the faid examinant apfwers, That to the best of his judgment and belief, there was no action depending in the Supreme Court of Pennfylvania, on the 8th day of September laft, wherein he was plaintiff, and Andrew Pettit, and Andrew Bayard, merchants and co-partners, trading under the firm of Pettit and Bayard, were defendant. That fuch an action had been inftituted on or about the 13th day of July laft, referred under an amicable agreement between the faid parties; a report made in favor of the plaintiff and the fuit determined by a judgment entered thereupon, on or about the 6th day of Auguft laft. 2. Interrogatory-In anfwer to the fecond interrogatory, the examinant faith, That he apprehends this question is best answered by a recurrence to the records of the Court, which muft certainly afford the fureft evidence of the facts to which the interrogatory relates. But the examinant has no objection to declaring that the faid fuit inftituted by him, against the said Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard, was referred by confent of parties; that the referees made report thereon in favor of the faid Thomas Pafimore, on or about the 6th day of August laft; that the exceptions to the faid report were filed on the part of Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard, on or about the fourth day of September laft, together with an affidavit made by the faid Andrew Bayard, as this examinant has heard and believes, in fupport of the fame exceptions, before John Inkeep, Efquire, one of the aldermen of the city; and this defendant further faith, That the action was inftituted by him, against the faid Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard, in order to recover from them the lofs fuitained by him on a policy fubfcribed by them, for five hundred dollars, in the office of Shoemaker and Berrett, of this city, on or about the thirteenth day of September, in the year one thoufand eight hundred and one, on the brig Minerva, belonging to this examinant; and to the best of his recollec tion, he took out of the office of the prothonotary of this Court, on the very day on which the faid award was rendered, two copies thereof, and left at the infurance office of the faid Shoemaker and Berrett, on the next day, one copy of faid report, with directions to them to communicate the fame to effrs. Pettit and Bayard, and the other underwriters in the faid policy; and the examinant has been informed and believes, that the faid award was made known by them to the faid Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard, or the faid Andrew Bayard, on or about the seventh day of August last; and the examinant declares, That on the ninth or tenth of the faid month, the faid Andrew Bayard told this examinent he had feen it. That the examinant has always understood and believed, and at the prefent day doth believe it to be a rule of this Court, that if exceptions are not filed to an award, under fuch cir cumftances, viz: When the report is by the tenor of the fubmiffion to be made into the office within four days, after the fame is made known to the party against whom it is to operate, fuch award is thereby rendered abfolute and unavoidable. This was the impreflion on the mind of the examinent, from about the middle of. Auguft laft, to the day when he first learned that the exceptions in faid caufe were filed, and it immediately afterwards occurred to him, that they were out of time and void, and therefore that the judgment in this examinant's favor must remain abfolute; and this examinant was more confirmed in the belief of the validity of this report, becaufe James Lyfle, an underwrit er on the fame risk, for one thousand dollars, gave an order in the examinant's favor for the amount on the next day after the faid award was rendered. Meffrs. Philips, Crammond, and Co. underwriters, alfo on the fame rifk, for one thousand dollars, gave an order for the amount in this examinant's favor, within about four days after; and Meffrs. Nicklin and Griffith, underwriters on the fame risk, for five hundred dollars, gave a fimilar order at about the fame time. That the examinant foon after was allowed without oppofition, to prove his lofs on the faid policy, against the estate of James Yard, a bankrupt, who alfo was an underwriter of one thousand dollars, on the faid policy; fo that of the four folvent defendants, parties to the faid award, Melts Pettit and Bayard, were the only underwriters who had not fettled with the defendant on faid policy, in a very few days after the faid award given. 5. Interrogatory-In answer to the third interrogatory, this examinant faith, That the paper alluded to in this interrogatory was fubfcribed by him, on the day of its date, and by the examinant, placed or fixed up to a board in one of the rooms of the city tavern, but was pulled down within a minute after, before any perfon could read it. 4. Interrogatory-In anfwer to the fourth interrogatory, this examinant faith, That the first exception filed to the faid award, flates that the referees therein named had a meeting on the fubject of the referrence with the plaintiff, when the defendants, the faid Pettit and Bayard, were not prefent nor notifed. In oppofition to which, the examinant ftates: That there was no meeting of the faid referees to which either of the parties to that fuit were admitted, of which a notification was not given either by information to the faid Andrew Bayard, himfelf or by the referees when they made their adjournment. That this examinant was confcious of this when he figned the fai |