Page:United States v. Samperyac.pdf/10

Rh  Rh  , for and on behalf of the United States, to revise, reverse, and annul a former decree of this court, pronounced and recorded at the December term, 1827, in favor of Bernardo Samperyac, for four hundred arpens of land.

The substantial allegations in the bill of review are, that the decree is erroneous, and was obtained by fraud and surprise; that the original petition, or requite and order of survey exhibited in this ease, are forged and corrupt; and that the order of survey was never signed by Miro, governor of Louisiana, as the same purports to have been; and that this fact has come to the knowledge of the said district attorney since said decree was entered of record; that Bernardo Samperyac is a fictitious person, and never had an actual existence; that if he ever did exist, he was dead at the time of exhibiting his bill; that John Hebrard, upon whose testimony the decree was made, committed the crime of perjury in giving his testimony; and that the statements sworn to by him upon the hearing of this cause, as set forth in his deposition, are false and corrupt; that the original petition and order of survey in this case, shows upon its face, that it was not made as early as the year 1789, but appears to have been made long since; and that the former decree of this court was obtained by fraud, covin, and misrepresentation, in violation of the principles of equity and of law.

The district attorney, for and on behalf of the United States, avers and says, that since the decree was made in this case, he has discovered new and important record evidence, which was not within his control, and the existence of which he did not know, and had not time to procure at the hearing of this cause; all which he believes he will be able to procure and exhibit upon the ﬁnal hearing.

The ﬁrst question made and argued at the bar, which will be considered, relates to the power conferred on this court by the act of congress of the 26th May, 1824, entitled "An Act enabling the claimants to land within the limits of the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas, to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims."

It is contended by the counsel for the defendants that the act of 1824 constituted a special tribunal, with limited and restricted