D. I wifh the witness to ftate whether he did not obferve him felf to Mr. Bayard, when he was about to retreat from the room, and called to him telling him, "come in Mr. Bayard we are on your business?

H. I recollect Mr. Bayard's coming to the door, whether it was fhut or not I cannot fay; but I think it was upon a jar, if my memory ferves me. If my memory ferves me, I was fitting with my fide to the door, looked round and faw it was. Mr. Bayard; as I obferved before he feemed to be looking for fomebody; I think I fpoke to him and asked him to come in. I do not recollect that he appeared to wish to retreat, if my memory ferves me.

D. I ask the witnefs whether he had been examined before on this question in the Supreme Court?

H. I might have, fir.

D. I ask the witnefs whether he can recollect that it was ever fuggefted that Mr. Bayard agreed to the choice of the umpire?

H. I do not recollect,fir, that I did, in any other way than by inference, in his fitting down on the bufinefs; for, as I faid before, I did not know that he had ever been confulted, as to that bufinefs.

D. Whether, at any time, and at what time, he heard of the difference between the agreement and the rule of Court, for the arbitration?

H. I don't recollect, fir.

D. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement was to fubmit the matter in difpute to Mr. Pearce and Mr. Henry, and they were to decide; upon carrying the agreement to the prothonotary's office, the rule was iffued giving a power to choose an umpire, and the rule was iffued with this error; I wish to know at what time the witnefs was informed of the variance between the agreement entered into and the rule that iffued to the referees?

H. I think, fir, I never heard of the rule of Court being taken out 'till Mr. Paffmore informed me he had taken the liberty to make use of my name as an arbitrator.

D. I afk the witnefs, whether he ever heard of the difference between the agreement and the rule of Court?

H. I never, fir, at any time, while I was acting as a referee under the rule of Court iffued for that purpofe, understood it in any other way-(that rule under which we acted)-than that if we did not agree, we were authorized to choose an umpire; I never heard that there was none [no authority] until after the execution was fet afide; but certainly not 'till after the award was entered in the office.

D. I wish the witnefs to ftate, whether Thomas Paffmore informed him he had ever applied at the prothonotary's office for an execution, and was refufed; if fo, at what time was the application made?

H. If my memory ferves me, I think Mr. Paffmore mentioned to me, that an execution had been granted, but I never did -never heard Him fay that any objections had been made by the prothonotary, to granting the execution.

D. I will now transfer the attention of the Court to the criminal part of the profecution. I with the witness to state, whether he is pofitive or correct, that the fact of the contempt was proved or acknowledged before the Court, before he heard the Chief Juftice call for Paffinore, and describe the enor, mity of the libel, and fay that it required great atonement?

H. I do not recollect, fir, that any thing had come to my knowledge, that could make me have an idea that the contempt could be proved. With respect to the order of time, I think the first time I was in the Supreme Court, was the day on which the rule was applied for to fhew caufe; I was not in the Court again, until the day on which Mr. Paffmore was called up.

D. I ak the witness, in what part of the Court he was when Palmore was called up; whether within the bar, or without?

H. I cannot fay, fir, particularly what part of the Court I had been in; but I recollect well another time attending the Court, as the security of Mr. Paffmore; I was then within the bar.

D. I wish the witnefs to ftate, whether his memory will enable him to recollect what fell from me while I was addreffing the Court, in behalf of the attachment; if I did not fay, when Mr. Mofes Levy wifhed interrogotories to be filed, that having proved the contempt, it was a matter of privilege, and not our duty to exhibit them?

H. I recollect after Mr. Paffmore had been called up, and received his reprimand, Mr. Mofes Levy, his counfel, hoped Mr. Paffmore would find an opportunity of exculpating himself in the ufual way, and made fome other obfervations, to which Mr. Dallas faid, that that was not neceffary, all that Mr. Paffmore had to do, was to own the hand writing, and if fo, the Court might proceed to pafs fentence.

D. The witness is perfectly correct; I ask him whether he can recollect ftill further, that I ftated that Paffmore had acknowledged the fact charged?

H. I do not recollect that it appeared in Court, that Mr. Paffmore ever acknowledged having been guilty of a contempt?

M

D. I wish the witnefs to ftate, whether Mr. Paffmore, by himself, or by his counfel, had not acknowledged the pofting up and figning the paper?

H. It is very poffible; I really cannot charge my memory whether he did, or did not. He might have acknowledged that he figned it.

D. I ask the witnefs, whether he heard Mr. Mofes Levy fay, "if he was not permitted to be heard in favor of his client, he would fit down and fay no more?

H. The fpeaker will obferve, that the answer to this question will apply to another time, not to the time that I was in Court, when Mr. Paffmore was called up to answer to the interrogatories. After the interrogatories had been gone through with, and the anfwers of Mr. Paffmore, Mr. Mofes Levy rose and addreffed the Court, as I think I have observed in a former part of my teftimony; Mr. Levy was interrupted, and appeared burt and chagrined, and faid that if he had not liberty to speak for his client, he would fit down.

D. I afk the witnefs whether, in the course of the argument, Mr. Levy had not fuffered frequent interruptions from the oppofing counfel?

H. Yes, fir, he did; and I think the oppofite counfel quoted feveral authorities, to fhew that his arguments did not apply to the question; after which, Mr. Paffmore's counfel quoted feveral authorities, to fhew that the answers were fufficient to purge the contempt-and, I think, in particular, Judge Blackftone.

D. I now put it to the candor of the witness to say whether the manner of the Court, in interrupting Mr. Levy was rude, angry or improper ?

H. This is a queftion, Mr. Speaker, of mere matter of opinion, which I am forry I have to answer; but as truth is neceffary in all things I muft fay, that the interruptions appeared very rude. The gentlemen feemed to speak at one and the fame time, and feemed agitated and difpleafed.

Mr. BOILEAU. Mr. Henry has Aated that Mr. Levy was frequently interrupted in the course of his argument; I with him to ftate whether thofe interruptions proceeded from all or only one of the gentlemen of the bench; or whether they proceeded from the bar?

H. I only allude to Judge Yeates and Judge Smith; I do not recollect of Judge Shippen.

B. I afk the witnefs whether fince that time he has ever heard Mr. Mofes Levy complain of the rudeness of the interruption?

H. No, fir, I never have; I never had an opportunity of talking with Mr. Levy on the subject.

D. I wish to ask the witnefs whether he does not recollect the Court affigned a variety of reafons befide that one of Mr. Bayard's not having been furnished with accounts of the repairs, as the reafon for fetting the award afide?

H. To the first part of the question I answer, the Judges did not complain that Mr. Bayard had not time to procure the accounts, but he affigned it as a reafon that he had not been furnished with the papers. With respect to the observations made by the Court, the judge made feveral and was pleased to fay that the gentlemen to whom the bufinefs had been referred, were gentlemen of understanding and information.

D. I ask the witness whether the teftimony of Phillips, the fhipcarpenter, did not prove that all the repairs were made on the upper works of the veffel?

1

H. No, fir, I do not recollect that to have been the cafe, but I recollect the Chief Juftice addreffing himself to me, and asked me the reafons for paffing ny judgment, for I told him the teftimony of the hipcarpenter proved that the veffel was fea-worthy. After that the Judges expreffed their sentiments in favor of my judgment.

D. I wish the witness to state whether Phillips did not make an affidavit of the facts?

H. Yes, fir, it was fworn to before Clement Biddle, I think. Mr. RODNEY. I will ask the witnefs one or two queftions Whether the referees proceeded on the grounds of Phil

more.

lips's affidavit or on his teftimony?

H. I did not look upon the examination taken before the referees to be any thing more than a corroboration of what he had previously given on oath.

R. Was his examination the fame with his affidavit?

H. Much the fame.

R. I think the witness faid before, that when examining Mr. Phillips, he had mentioned fomething to him about a voyage to Europe; I would wish him to repeat that part?

H. As to the question I asked Mr. Phillips, as to whether if he was inclined to go to any distant port in Europe, whether Le would have gone in that veffel; he answered that he would as foon as in any other veffel in port.

R. I think the witness has ftated that Mr. Bayard was not prefent at the examination of Phillips; I afk the witness whether Mr. Bayard, if he had thought proper to attend, might

have had a full and fair opportunity of examining him himfelf; and whether he might have attended, if he had though: proper

H. Yes.

R. Mt. Henry, you have been asked by the oppofite counfels what you would have done if Mr. Haflett had not attended; I ask you whether, if Mr. Haflett had not come, the referees, would have adjourned to meet again?

H. Certainly, fr.

R. I ask the witnefs whether Mr. Bayard was prefent at the time of adjournment of the previous meeting?

H. I do not recollect, fir; I think he was not.

R. Was he present at the meeting previous to that?

H. If my memory ferves me, I believe he was; we had five meetings, three of which I am confident he was at,

R. The witness has faid that the pilot gave a ftatement in writing; I ask him, did not the referees reject the pilot's statement?

H. I really do not know.

R. Did they receive it as teftimony?

H. No, fir; not as teftimony; it was confidered as a mere. account of what had taken place in the river.

R. Mr. RODNEY. We fhall next proceed to the examination of William Haflett.

WILLIAM HASLETT—Sworn.

Mr. RODNEY. I wish the witness to relate to the Court all the facts he knows that relate to the fubject now before them.

Mr. HASLETT. My first meeting, fir, with Mr. Henry and Mr. Pearce was at the coffee-houfe, about the latter end of July 1802. I found them together with Mr. Paffmore fitting in a room of the coffee-house, up ftairs; I fat down with them, and they proceeded to give me a statement of the cafe fubmitted to them; Mr. Bayard was not prefent, nor did I know at what hour the parties interested were to meet the referees; not long after I had taken my feat at the table Mr. Bayard came to the room door and expreffed a degree of furprize at finding Mr. Paffmore with the referees without his knowledge. Mr. Bayard then came into the room and fat down with us, at the table, and we entered upon the bufinefs immediately; all the teftimony, I believe, that had been exhibited to the arbitrators was laid before me, I found Mr. Henry and Mr. Pearce were of different opinions, and that the queftions, at least the principal queftions, in difpute were, whether the veffel was fea