6. The 30th section of the Judiciary
Act of September 24th, 1789, (1 U.
S. Stat. at Large, 88,) gives author-
ity to this Court to compel witnesses
to attend before a Commissioner for
examination de bene esse, in the same
manner as to compel them to appear
and testify in Court. And, upon due
proof of service of a subpoena upon
a witness, requiring his attendance
before a Commissioner, and the cer-
tificate of the Commissioner that the
witness did not attend before him, it
is proper that an attachment should
issue against the witness. Ex parte
Humphrey,

228

7. But that statute does not apply to
a witness who is casually absent from
home, although he is found at a place
more than one hundred miles from
the place of trial of the cause, unless
he is about going to sea, or is aged,
infirm, &c.
id.

8. Where an attachment is issued
against such a witness, the question
of the authority of the Commissioner

board of the vessel, but do not war-
rant the internal condition of the
cotton in the bales. Bradstreet v.
Heran,
116

2. Where cotton in bales was shipped
at New Orleans for New York, and
the master of the vessel gave a bill
of lading for the cotton as "in good
order and well-conditioned " when
received on board the vessel, and it
was in bad shipping condition when
it arrived at New York, a large part
of the bales being old and rotten,
and badly torn and damaged, and
the cotton being consequently soiled
and damaged by exposure, and it ap-
peared that the effects of this dam-
age upon the external state of the cot-
ton were developed at New Orleans
before it was shipped: Held, on a
libel in personam, in Admiralty, by
the master against the consignees of
the cotton, to recover the freight,
that, as the damage to the cotton ex-
ceeded the freight, the libel must be
dismissed.
id.

3. Held, also, that as the consignees
had made large advances upon the
cotton on the faith of the representa-
tion in the bill of lading, that it was
shipped "in good order," their secur-
ity, as bond-fide purchasers, ought
not to be lessened or impaired by
permitting the master to contradict
that representation.
id.

4. Held, also, that although the cotton
might have been sold for an excess
beyond the advances, sufficient to
cover the freight, the consignees
were entitled to it in the condition
described in the bill of lading, as
security for their advances, without
regard to the fluctuations of the mar-
ket, or to sales to be made at any
particular state of it.
id.

See CARRIER, 3, 4, 6.

BILL OF SALE.

See LIEN, 2, 3.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

1. J., for the accommodation of M., ac-
cepted a draft drawn by M., paya-

2. Before the draft was passed to P., it
was put by M. into the hands of one
B., to negotiate. B. inquired of J.
as to the draft, who said it was a
business draft and would be paid at
maturity. Afterwards, and before
taking the draft, P. applied to B. to
know what J. had said about the
draft, and was told, and then took
the draft: Held, that P. could not be
in any more favorable position, as
regarded the inquiries he made of
B., than if he had made them of J.
himself, in which case he would have
been bound to disclose to J. any
knowledge he had that J. had been
defrauded in giving the acceptance.
id.

3. Where a person took passage in a
vessel, but his personal baggage did
not reach him in season to be put on
board of that vessel, and he sailed
without it, and it was put on board
of another vessel, a receipt or bill of
lading being given for it by the mate
of the latter vessel, but it was never
delivered at its port of destination:
Held, in an action in rem brought
against the latter vessel for the value
of the baggage, that the case was
one of the ordinary shipment of
goods on freight, for whose safe de-
livery the vessel was liable, and that
her owner was not to be regarded
merely as a gratuitous bailee, re-
sponsible only for gross negligence.