
    STARK v. THE CHESAPEAKE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    MsciiL...Washington, J. Todd, J. <$•■ Duvaiu, «*.
    I? noted- sot rerawnrfoauf raii*ation that a,u -ths i-equisby5ia^lor'tht: iiim-ssW of rights rf dN fccnshl]^ have ciiCwith°mpU" S¡,:mb that the judgment or ¿Ven to be-, fa-Xrofir ¡that »h thci Kw' been ^1 or, that parol proof may be in Br<3 of the repord-
    ERROR to the, Circuit Court for the district, of Mar', land, in an action of covenant upon a pblicy of asUurance, j'n'which the. goods- insured were warranted to *>e jfanqrican.pro/mrfy,. u proof of which to. b,e required in “ the United States only.” A loss by capture having taken, place, the Plaintiff offered an abandonment which refused, whereform he brougi.it tiiis action:
    P*W8 “is citizenship and support the warranty, Iff produced and read at the.trial an exemplification duly ,authenticated, of the record-of his naturalization, in the following,.viz:
    ^ Al % Court of, common pleas-held at York, for the itcqmjiy of, Tdt'h* on the. third Monday of May, in the “yuarofbur Lord, one thousand eight hundred ánd four, fore. John Joseph. Henry, esquire, president and fphjs, associate judges, &c.- assigsiedi.&e. * 'f °
    «The petition of JobnJBhilip Stark, late of. Wetgen* iHjstein BcrlebuKg.,. in the empire'of Germany, wás read to «the Court',, setting forth that your petitioner has rer f* sided, i» the sjtafo bf FenÜaylvánia five years, that he «is naw desirous .of becoming a citizen of the United “ States conformably .to the áct of congress in such cáse «Igtely provided; yqur petitioner therefore prays of the 
      t> honorable Court that lie inAy be, admitted to citizen«ship ppon bis -complying with the requisites of the « act aforesaid, and your petitioner will pray, &c.
    «JOHN PHILIP STARK.
    
      “. Jacob Hostler appearing in Court, and being du«ly sworn, says that the petitioner above, named lias « resided within the state of Pennsylvania.jive years ami “upwards ; and during that time he has behaved as a “. man of good moral character, attached to the princi- « pies of the constitution óif tire United States, and well « disposed to the good prder and happiness of the samé.
    «JACOB HOSTLER.
    « Sworn and subscribed in open Court the 21st of « May, 1804.
    «CHARLES W. HARTLÉY.
    « John ■ Philip Stark, the above petitioner’ appearing ?*in open Court and being duly sworn, doth declare that «he will supporttheconstitution ofthe United States, and “ that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure « all allegiance and fidelity, to every foreign prince, po«tentate, state, or sovereignty whatever,[and.particularly «to Christein the prince of Weigenstein Berleburg, in the “ empire of Germany.
    «JOHN PHILIP STARK.
    
      “ Sworn and subscribed in open Court, the 2lst of “ May,4804. ■
    « CHARLES W. HARTLEY.
    , « Whereupon the Court admitted the said John PMlip « Stark to become a citizen of the sáid United States, agreeh «ably to the prayer of his said petition,'and ordered all ‘«the proceedings'aforesaid, to be recorded by the clerk of «thesaid Court.”
    The Plaintiff also proved by pa»’ol evidence that he being a free white person, did reside, within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United Stales, to wit: in the state of Pennsylvania, at some time between the t8th day of June, 1798, and the 14th day of April, Í802, viz: on the 1st day of October, 1708, and there corttinued to reside from that time until the 21st of May, 1804.
    Whereupon, the Court, at the prayer of t!ie Defendarits, by their counsel, directed the jury that the Plaintiff liad failed in proving the property insured under the policy, to be American property according to the warranty, and therefore was not'entitled to recover.
    To which instruction; the Plaintiff took a bill of exceptions.
    The act of congress of the iMh of April,1802, vol. 6, p. 74, “to establish an. uniform rule of naturalization “and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that sub“ject,” requires that the applicant should have made a previous declaration before some Coui’t of record of his intention to become a citizen, &c. three years before his admission; anil that the-Court admitting such alien, shall be satisfied that he has resided in the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where shell Court is at the time held,, one year at least.
    The act of 26th March, 1804, vol. 7, p. 130, dispenses with the* previous declaration (f intention, &c. as to such aliens, “ being free white persons, as were residing “within the limits, and under the- jurisdiction of the United States, at any time between the 18th day off urn; 1798, aud the 14th day .of April, 1802, and who* have ctintinued to reside within the same.”
    The objection made by. the Defendants counsel to the record of naluralization of the Plaintiff was, that it did not appear .by the record, that the Plaintiff had made a previous declaration of his intention to become a citizen, agreeably to the first provision of the act of 14th April, 1802; nor that lie was residing. withiR the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States at any time between the 18th of June, 1798, and the 14th of April, 180¡2, and continued to reside therein so as, to be enti-, tied to the benefit of the act of the 26th of March, 1804.
    It was contended also that parol evidence of these facts ought not now to bo Admitted in aid of the record.
    Qn the part of the Plaintiff it wás'contended:
    
      4k -Tltat the decido» of the Court of common pitas for the county of York . w^s conclusive. > That Court had power and authority to admit aliens to the right of Citizenship — and-having admitted the Plaintiff, the grounds of their decision cannot now tie enquired into, nor the correctness of their judgment questioned.
    2. That if the record ot atimtsston be not conclusive, yet it was competent for the Plaintiff to prove now by parol -evidence the fa'cts which did, at the time he was admitted, entitle him to the benefit of the act qf the 26th of March, 1804.
    
      .Harper,for the Plaintiff in error,.and Martin, for the Defendant in error,
    
   Submitted the question arising in this case without argument to the Court, wild, without giving, a. more particular opinion, pronounced the following judgment :

This cause camd oh to be heard oh the transcript, of the record and was argued by counsel, on consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion that the Circuit Court erred in directing the jury, that the Plaintiff had failed in proving the property, insured under the policy, to bo American property. It is therefore considered by the Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and aunulled, and the cause remanded to that Court to be further proceeded in according to law.

Judgment reversed.  