I received a notice, informing me that a motion had been made at the September term, for a rule to be granted to fhew caufe on the first day of the December term following, why an attachment fhould not iffue against me, for a contempt of Court. I accordingly attended: After being in Court fome time, Mr. Shippen afked, if Thomas Paffmore was in Court. My counfel called me up to the bar. When I had come there, I was thus addreffed by the Chief Juftice: Sir, you have been guilty of an enormous libel against the characters of two gentlemen, Mefirs. Pettit and Bayard, which requires great atonement, and faid, that the Court hoped you would prepare yourself to make thofe gentlemen a handfome apology. After this declaration, I turned to my counfel, and told him, I thought it cruel I fhould be condemned in open Court, without being first informed of what I had been guilty. My counfel then rose and said, he hoped that the Court would proceed in their ufual way, or words to that effect, by filing interrogatories, that we might know what the charges were against me. This mode vas objected to by Mr. Dallas, and, I think, Mr. J. B. M Kean, faying it was only neceffary that I fhould be asked if I was the author of the publication put up at the coffee-house, and if I acknowledged that I was the author, I fhould receive my punishment at once. The Court decided in favor of putting interrogatories. I was then bound over for my appearance from day to day, during the pleasure of the Court, in the fum of three hundred dollars, myself, and a fecurity in a like fum. I attended Court, in compliance with that recognizance, I was furnished with a copy of the interrogatories, and on the 27th of the fame month, I filed my answers. There was then a general argument by Meffrs. Dallas and Levy. During the argument of my counfel, he was frequently interrupted by the Court. He then faid, that he would fay no more, and fat down, appeared much hurt. I think nothing more took place this day. After the Court had adjourned, and after dinner, Mr. Levy asked me to take a walk down to the lower part of the city with him. I reminded him of his interruption by the Court. He faid the Court had fhewed a good deal of anger on the fubject. I at tended Court the next day, (the 28th.) After I had been there fome time, the Chief Juftice afked if any thing had been done? I think Mr. Dallas anfwered no.' I understood this question related to the apology to be made. The Chief Juftice then called me up to the bar, and thus addreffed me : "You have been obftinate-the Court were in hopes that you would have made the apology required." That "the Court had delayed the bu finefs for that purpose, and if I had a done it, it would have meliorated, if not done away the neceffity of paffing the prefent fentence, which they were about to do." This was, that I hould be committed to the county jail, for the fpace of thirty

days, and pay a fine of fifty dollars, and pay the cofts of profecution. After receiving this unexpected fentence, I addressed the Court, and informed them that they had dwelt much upon my making an apology to Pettit and Bayard, that I believed that Mr. Bayard was the aggreffor, and I the injured man ; that I was willing to make any apology to the Court, as I was confcious of never intentionally offending them. Judge Yeates then obferved, that "my fentence had been paffed on me, and that they wanted to hear nothing further from me"-Judge Smith then faid "no-it would be only adding infult to injury." Mr. Levy then applied to the Court for permiffion, for me going home to fee my family. I think he faid he would be refponfible for the prifoner, if the Court complied with his request. The Court complied, after making fome obfervations, as to what would be the tendency in cafe I did not return. Í then went home, with the unexpected and unpleasant news to my family, who were already fufficiently diftreffed by the death of a child, one or two days before. I then went to the prifon, where I continued for 30 days, paid the fine of 50 dollars, and paid the costs of profecution. I was then fet at liberty.

CROSS EXAMINED.

Mr. Dallas. I wish Mr. Paffmore to ftate to the Court, who figned the agreement for an arbitration; whether it was figned by only four of the parties, or by all?

Mr. Passmore. There were two amicable actions.

D. I mean the agreement drawn up by Mr. Sampfon Levy? P. They were both drawu up Mr. Samplon Levy.

D. The witness appears not to understand me-I particularly mean the first amicable action?

P. The first agreement was figned by all the underwriters and myself.

D. I wish him to ftate whether there was not a fubfequent agreement?

P. There was:

D. I wish the witness to state, whether it was figned by a l the parties?

P. It was not.

D. Was it figned by Pettit and Bayard?

P. It was not.

D. I wish to know when the action was entered on the first agreement?

P. To the best of my recollection, the first was entered on the 12th or 13th of July; the fecond, on the 17th or 18th.

I can state, if the Court think it neceffary, the reafons for en tering into the fecond agreement.

D. Was there any material difference between the firft and fecond agreement. If there was, what was that difference?

P. Yes, there was a difference. One was drawn and figned. by the different underwriters, who agreed to abide by the decifion of the arbitrators, that fhould be given in the amicable action between Pettit and Bayard, and myself. In that there was no fpecial provision for the appointment of an umpire. The fecond authorized the appointment of an umpire.

D. I wifh the witness to be asked, whether, the fecond agreement was ever prefented to Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard for fignature?

P. No, it was not intended to be.

D. Í am to understand from this anfwer that it was never prefented to Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard for fignature. I wish the witnefs to ftate whether it was ever figned fubfequently by Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard?

P. No it was not. When I went with the first agreement to have it entered in the prothonotary's office, it was objected to, because it had not the attorney's fignature. Mr. Levy wrote a form of a rule of Court, and mentioned that the rule authorized the referees in cafe of difagreement, to choofe an umpire. He advised me to take out a new rule, fo as to include all the underwriters, except Pettit and Bayard, as they were already included in the first.

D. Was the inftrument given by Mr. Levy to be entered?
P. No, fir.

D. Was the original agreement ever fhewn to the referees?
P. I don't know that it was.

D. I wish the witness to be asked whether it was ever fhewn to Pettit and Bayard, by Mr. S. Levy, or any other person?

P. It certainly was, as will appear from the evidence of Mr. Sampfon Levy.

D. The witnefs will ftate, whether the original agreement was ever produced to the referees?

P. I rather think it was not-but a copy of the rule of Court from the prothonotary's office was.

D. I wish to know from the witnefs, if, on his application to Mr. Mofes Levy for an execution, he was not told by that gentleman, that all the proceedings were null and void?

P. I did not apply to Mr. Mofes Levy until after the execution had been iffued.

D. Did not fuch

a converfation between Mr. Moses Levy which he declared the whole proceedings invalid, take place; and at what time did it take place?

and the witnefs, in

P. Never to my knowledge; on the contrary he informed me that the exceptions filed by Mr. Bayard were out of time, and that the judgment had become absolute.

D. I wish the witnefs to ftate to whom he applied for an execution?

P. To Mr. Sampson Levy.

D. Mr. Paffmore has ftated that an execution was taken out before he applied to Mr. Mofes Levy: I wish him to state who iffued it, and who was in the prothonotary's office when it was iffued?

P. Mr. Burd and Mr. Ripley-on recollection, I faw Mr. Ripley the first time, and Mr. Burd and Mr. Ripley afterwards.

D. The witness will please to state what Mr. Ripley said to him, refpecting the irregularity of the paper prefented for entry at the office of the prothonotary?

P. He faid that it wanted the name of an attorney to confefs judgment.

D. No other reason?

P. None that I recollect.

D. I wish the witnefs to fay, whether he was not informed, that upon a comparison of the original agreement with the rule, there was a variance which would prove fatal to the whole proceeding?

P. He did not.

D. I wish the witness to be asked whether he ever heard of fuch a variance; and when?

P. If the Court pleafes, I will relate the whole of the bufinefs. When I met Mr. Burd in his office, he told me, that it was abfolutely neceflary for me to get an attorney to come and confefs a judgment founded on the rule of Court, to abide by the award; and I went and got Mr. Brown, a young ftudent of Mr. Sampfon Levy, who came and entered a confeffion of judgment for me. There was then no difficulty.

D. May it pleafe the Court, the witness appears not to understand me. I wish him to flate particularly, whether he had any intimation from any perfon of any variance between the agreement and rule of Court, that would destroy its effect.-If he had at what time, and when?

P. After the judgment on the award of the referees had been entered, I went to Mr. Burd to take out an execution.

Mr. Ripley wished me to wait till the next morning, as he faid Mr. Burd would then return from the country, where he then was with his family; and told me that a variance between the agreement and rule of Court had been discovered by young Mr. Burd, but that Mr. Bayard, in the prefence of young Mr. Burd, had faid, that Meffrs. Pettit and Bayard would take no advantage of it. So Mr. Ripley told me.

D. Will the witnefs undertake to say, that no other reasons than those he has mentioned, were affigned for objecting to the proceedings of the referees?

P. I can recollect no other reasons than thofe I have stated?
D. Did not Mr. Burd himself inform the witnefs of a vari
ance between the rule of Court and the second agreement?
P. Mr. Burd did not intimate any variance to me.

D. I wish the witness to ftate, whether he was not informed by Mr. Burd, that Mr. Bayard would object to the award of the referees, on account of their having proceeded with an umpire?

P. I believe he did not; Mr. Bayard was the first to propofe calling in a third perfon, or umpire.

D. I wish the witness to be asked, whether he was prefent in Court during the time of the argument that took place, when the execution was fet afide; and at the time of the fubfequent argument on fetting afide the judgment and report of the re

ferees?

P. I was in Court when both arguments took place; but both were not done at one time. The motion for setting afide the execution, was made on the 18th of September, I think by Mr. Jofeph B. M'Kean, Mr. Levy, without confulting me, agreed to fet the execution afide. I caught him by the coat, and asked him what he meant by it; he affured me it did not affect the judgment, though it did the execution.

D. I wish to know if a conversation did not take place between the witness and Mr. Burd, after entering the first agreement and before the fecond was entered?

P. Yes there was.

D. Did not Mr. Burd mention the variance between the two agreements?

P. No; never intimated any variance to me between the agreements.

D. The witnefs will ftate to the Court, whether the execution was not stayed in the prothonotary's office; and what Mr. Ripley faid to him at that time?