unto affixed, at the City of New York, in the Second Circuit, this 27th day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, and of the Independence of the said United States the one hundred and sixteenth. JOHN A. SHIELDS, Clerk. FORM XXXI.-WRIT OF ERROR TO STATE COURTS. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SS. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, To the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, GREETING: Because in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of the judgment of plea which is in the said Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts before you, or some of you, being the highest court of law or equity of the said State in which a decision could be had in the said suit between John Doe and Richard Roe, wherein was drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision was against their validity; or wherein was drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, said State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision was in favor of such their validity; or wherein was drawn in question the construction of a clause of the Constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under the United States, and the decision was against the title, right, privilege, or exemption specially set up or claimed under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission; a manifest error hath happened to the great damage of the said Richard Roe, as by his complaint appears. We being willing that error, if any hath been, should be duly corrected, and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that then under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the record and proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the same, to the Supreme Court of the United States, together with this writ, so that you have the same at Washington, on the day of next, in the said Supreme Court, to be then and there held, that the record and proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the said Supreme Court may cause further to be done therein to correct that error, what of right, and according to the laws and customs of the United States, should be done. Witness the Honorable MELVILLE W. FULLER, Chief Justice of the said Supreme Court, the 18th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine. Allowed by JAMES HALL MCKENNEY, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States. HORACE GRAY, Justice. FORM XXXII.— ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. The Supreme Court of the United States. In the Matter of the Petition of JOHN STILES, Appellant. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS. Afterwards, to wit, on the third Friday of January in the year of our Lord, eighteen hundred and ninety, at the October term for eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the Capitol, in the City of Washington and District of Columbia, comes the said John Stiles, by Robert Jones, his attorney, and says that in the record and proceedings in the above entitled matter there is manifest error in this, to wit: I. That the matters charged in the complaint against John Stiles do not constitute a crime by the common law or under any Statute of the United States. II. That the matters testimony tending to prove which was given before John A. Shields, United States Commissioner, in the above entitled matter, do not constitute a crime by the common law or under any Statute of the United States. III. That the matters charged as a crime against John Stiles, as appears by the testimony before John A. Shields, United States Commissioner, occurred and were committed, if they ever occurred or were committed, within the Southern District of New York, and not within the District of Connecticut; and that by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution the United States, said John Stiles canno tbe tried upon said charge in the District Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. IV. That the said Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue a warrant for the arrest of John Stiles. V. That the Marshal of the United States had no authority to arrest or detain John Stiles. VI. That the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York erred in not discharging the said John Stiles upon the return of the Writ of Habeas Corpus herein. Wherefore the said John Stiles prays that the order of the said Circuit of the United States for the Southern District of New York be reversed, and the said Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York be ordered to enter an order directing the discharge of the said John Stiles from custody. ROBERT JONES, Attorney for Appellant, 206 & 208 Broadway, New York. FORM XXXIII.-PETITION for Writ of CERTIORARI TO CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. [Copied from record, Bleecker v. Steamship Kensington, 175 U. S. 726.] To the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The Petition of LIZZIE STEARNS BLEECKER and The Steamship "KENSINGTON," her BOILERS, Claimants and Appellants. The said petitioners respectfully show to this court as follows: I. Your petitioners were, at the time of the cominencement of this suit, citizens and residents of the State of New Jersey, and the claimant was at that time a foreign corporation, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. II. On or about the 9th day of December, 1897, the said The International Navigation Company entered into a contract with the libelants and petitioners herein for a valuable consideration to them paid by the libelants, whereby it agreed to and with your petitioners to convey and transport the libelants from the Port of Antwerp, in the Kingdom of Belgium, to the Port of New York, in the United States of America, by the said steamship "Kensington," and by said steamship to carry and transport with safety to said Port of New York, and there deliver to the libelants, in good order and condition, the personal luggage or baggage of the libelants. III. On or about the 11th day of December, 1897, the libelants took passage at Antwerp for New York upon said steamship "Kensington," then lying at said Antwerp, bound for said Port of New York, and, in pursuance of the terms of the contract between them and on or about said day last mentioned, delivered to the said The International Navigation Company, on board of said steamship at Antwerp, the wearing apparel and other personal baggage of libelants, to be transported as aforesaid by said steamship to said Port of New York, and there delivered to the libelants in good order and condition. IV. Early in December, 1897, your petitioners engaged their passage from the claimant herein in Paris, France. At that time they paid part of their passage money, and received in return either a receipt or a ticket, which was not good until the balance of the purchase money was paid in Antwerp. In Antwerp they paid the balance of the purchase money. Neither of them read the ticket, and the day that they went on board the steamer they gave it up to the paymaster (Mrs. Bleecker, p. 15, fols. 57, 58; p. 21, fols. 83, 84; Miss Bleecker, p. 26, fols. 101, 102). Your petitioners received in Antwerp a receipt for their baggage, which they also did not read, and which acknowledges the receipt of their baggage, "weight, contents and value unknown, and shipped by the Red Star Line Steamers, subject to the conditions contained in the Co.'s ticket and bill of lading. Red Star Line, Antwerp, December, 1897. Caisse" (p. 56, fol. 222). They were not asked concerning the value of their baggage by any agent of the ship or of the shipowners (p. 24, fol. 96). The ticket so far as is material is as follows: 66 Paris, on the 2 Decr., 1897. This ticket is good for second-cabin passage of the persons named in the margin, viz., . . . by the British steamship 'Kensington' from Antwerp, on the 11th of December, 1897, at one o'clock P. M., unless prevented from unforeseen circumstances." In minute type, much smaller than what preceded: "Notice to passengers. It is a condition upon which this ticket is granted, and is mutually agreed, for the consideration aforesaid, that: . "(c) The shipowner or agent are not under any circumstances liable for loss, death, injury or delay to the passenger or his baggage, arising from the act of God, the public enemies, fire, robbers, thieves of whatever kind, whether on board the steamer or not; perils of the seas, rivers or navigation; accident to or of machinery, boilers or steam; collisions, strikes, arrest or restraint of princes, courts of law, rulers or people, or from any act, neglect or default of the shipowner's servants, whether on board the steamer or not, or on board any other vessel belonging to the shipowner, either in matters aforesaid or otherwise howsoever. Neither the shipowner nor the agent is, under any circumstances, or for any cause whatever or however arising, liable to any amount exceeding two hundred and fifty francs for death, injury or delay of or to any passenger carried under this ticket. The shipowner will use all reasonable means to send the steamer to sea in a seaworthy state, and well-found, but does not warrant her seaworthiness. "(d) The shipowner or agent shall not, under any circumstances, be liable for any loss or delay of or injury to passengers' baggage carried under this ticket beyond the sum of two hundred and fifty francs, at which such baggage is hereby valued, unless a bill of lading or receipt be given therefor and freight paid in advance on the excess value at the rate of one per cent., or its equivalent, in which case the owner shall only be responsible according to the terms of the shipowner's form of cargo bill of lading in use from the port of departure, etc. All questions arising hereunder are to be settled according to Belgian Law.” V. Said steamship sailed from said port of Antwerp with your petitioners and their baggage on board on or about the 11th day of December, 1897, for the port of New York, and where said steamship arrived in safety on or about the 23d day of December, 1897, but owing to the careless, negligent, unusual, insufficient and improper manner in which your petitioners' baggage was stored, and the careless, negligent and insufficient manner in which other merchandise in said steamship was stored, and the want of proper care on the part of the master of said steamship, his officers and crew, and persons employed by him or them, the said personal baggage of your petitioners, which was of the value of four thousand dollars ($1,000), was in great part utterly ruined, whereby your petitioners were severally damaged in the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000). VI. On the 9th of February, 1898, the libel herein was filed in the office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and on the same day the above-named steamship was levied upon. VII. The claimant The International Navigation Company interposed an answer admitting all of the matters alleged in the libel except that it agreed to transport the said luggage with safety and to deliver it in good order and condition except so far as that duty is to be implied from its engagement in the aforesaid ticket, and that the said baggage was damaged by reason of insufficient and improper stowage, and alleged in said answer that the said baggage was injured by reason of the violence of the sea and unusual weather. For a further and independent defense it alleged therein that it was a part of the contract of transportation that all questions arising under the same should be settled according to Belgium law with reference to which the alleged contract was made, and that the said alleged contract contained a provision which was alleged to be valid under the law of Belgium to the effect that the shipowner should not be liable for loss or injury to the passenger or his baggage arising from perils of the sea, rivers or navigation, or from any act, neglect or default of the shipowner's servants. And for a further, separate and partial defense the claimant alleged in said answer that in and by said contract of transportation it was provided that the shipowner should not, under any circumstances, be liable for any loss or injury to passengers' baggage beyond the sum of two hundred and fifty francs, at which such baggage is valued, unless a bill of lading be given therefor, and freight paid in advance on the excess value of the rate of one per cent. or its equivalent, and the claimant avers that no bill of lading or receipt was given or freight paid on any value in excess of the sum of two hundred and fifty francs by the libelants or by either of them. VIII. On the 8th day of June, 1898, the above suit came on for trial before the Honorable Addison Brown, District Judge for the Southern District of New York, who, on or about the 1st day of July, 1898, filed his decision to the following effect: That the aforesaid ticket marked "Claimant's Exhibit A" was a contract; that the baggage was damaged by the negligence of the men in charge of the ship; that the clauses of the ticket which purported to exempt the shipowner from liability did not apply, but that the clause limiting the liability to two hundred and fifty francs was applicable; and on the 29th day of October, 1899, a decree in accordance with said decision was made and entered herein awarding to your petitioners herein the sum of only $96.20, with interest and costs amount. ing to $51.59, making in all the sum of $151.59, instead of the sum of $4,000 with interest and costs. Upon said trial your petitioners offered to prove the value of their said baggage, and that the value of the baggage of each of them exceeded in value the sum of $2,000; but the said District Judge excluded the testimony so offered by your petitioners. Said judge, however, admitted testimony and evidence which showed that the value of the said baggage of each of your petitioners exceeded the sum of two hundred and fifty francs (pp. 15-17, fols. 59-66). IX. On or about the 29th day of October, 1898, your petitioners were |