The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-16 00:00:00

L.ga

COURT OF KINg's,It.ENCF4 juts zs.
m-oftialittsz
•
• This. was .an isstie out of Chancery to .try the vr,
lidity of a. claim to the sum of. WOOL with interest,
set up. by. the Plaintiff, Vv ho was examined under the
Lord ChanCelidr;S Ordet. The whore affair wes,df
considerable intricacy, and incapable of being Satia-
faCtoriiy stated,witlibrevity, , ,
The, ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened -the Case, and
Mr.., Morgan, a solicitor of eininenceof Bedford-
square, Was, examined;! but it appearing that-the '
.whole claim rested upon his own testimonfalotie,
and that he -had made no entry of the transaction in
any account7.book of his .own,. and that none !appear...
ed ,in the papers of any of the deceased parties who
;were concerned, in the transaction, it. being an ar•
rangewent of trtiSt-monieS under a family settle-
Men t
.; . • .
. ELi.ENBORCIIGH,. C. J. intimated that. it
could not properly be allowed ; and . • 7 „
'Tile ATTORNEY-GY.N.KRAL .said, that in such a
case the party not. having taken the-erdinary pie-
cautions:, be must abide, by the.lessal cenC'usion, and
there, was a verdiet, for the Defendant; and against
the clairnof Mr. Murgan. .
• , .reurFIELD V.. NVZLSON, ,
Mr. SCARLETT.9pened the Plaintiff's case, whiCh
was an Aaiun to recover e compensation upon an
insurance which the Plaintiff had etfeCted with the
Defendant;, -who;keeps,an office in Leicester-street,
Leicester-fields, , to.. insure, him from, ser‘nie lit 'the
Militia ender. the. ACI paised last. Year.: The in-
surance was effetted by the Plaintiff at the office. of
the Defendant, • through Ole pgency of ,his, the De-
fendant's clerk, a Mr. Begbie, who Would be called,
and it he spoke truth, would proVe, that
,the Pion),
tiff had expressly asked whether it g.ruld hid :enmity
bin against all the consequencos of the
.4141? to
which he replied that it would. lie then paid, rout
guineas Premium; for which the befendint .gave_ a
receipt _for that sum, being
,for his sub,crik,tion to
the. Society ~for, providing Substitutes, Ste. " fur
persons drawn before the ist of Febru ;ry; 1808, to
indemnify theth.frOth-sen log under the tie ..-ied
in 1807. P , Under this clause, the Defendatit•meant
.to rest his defence, because, iu fact, the Plaintiff
was not drawn till, after the lst,of February—but,
said Mr. SCAR LEi.T; there is an eKpression in the
snbsequeet part of. the receipt, which gieWs this to
be a fallacy, because it goes 011 to say,, that no per. ,
Son is to be entitled to the benefit of the insurance
who. is no; drawn under the Ad passed in 180; the
balloting for which,will expire before 1898 ; arid, in
fad, .all ballottings were direded to cea.e before
the- 31,4 of January., .180, but 'there being s9tne
sufficiency in • the numbers of the men
,raised in
the Parish of St. Giles's, in which the Plaintiff, who
resides in Gewer,street,, was liable to, be,ballutted
for, he was infita drawn for a tnilitiathan under the
Ad7pessed in 1807.. • d • • .
.He then applied to the Defendau( for a substitute,
and he refused to provide one, cir even to return the
premium which had been received. Previous how, •
ever, to the Plaiptiff's being drawn, the Defendant
had written him a letter, mating, that as they bound
the ballot Was to continue three months longee,' he
thotight it but right . to offer to continue his incur.
once further, upon. payment of a less sun) proposed
in the letter. This, in fad., ;explained the whole'
.transadion, for the Defendant had tiiiitaken the
operation of the statute, and supposed that it must
expire by the 31st of Japuary„ 1808; whereas; under
some circumstances, it continued beyond that period.
The Plaintiff,
,who Was a Gentleeian of„ fOrtune,
now claiMed the indemnity to the full extent, or at
least a return of the precnium. ,
Lord kLLENBOROUQH asked what objeetion there
was to the return of the premium ?. . •
Mr.GAatiow and MI. MARRY ATT said they thoulct.
contend, that. by the A6l, all ballotting was.to
within a limited time, which expired before the 31st
of January, and the'refbre, as the Plaintiff was not
liable to be drawn under the Ad_ after;., he was not
damnified, nut had the Plaintiff misrepresented the
At, aud'there Was,a certain rilcrWrprevions to the
31st of january, which would entitle the Defendant
to keep the eremiuM. . , .
Lord ELLENEGRGUGH, Chief Justice, said, if he
Was forced to inquire into it, he Certainly should
examine into the Act, and pronounce judicially,
whether all the men drawn after the 31st of Janu-
ary, 1808, were legally drawn or het but that was
a question. of.too great magnitUde to, be agitated
upon such an oecasten; and if that did not turn out
to be the construction of the statute, then the De-
fendant had made a misrepresentation (although„it
was true both parties were bound to know tt4,lawN
which would entitle .the Plaintiff tO recover his pre-
.
tu.
. .
After some consultatien, a ierdid. was taken, by
coiiseiit; for 41.45. the arnount of the premium paid
by the Plaintaf. •

THE KING V. MARY ANNE TAYLOR.
This was an indiCitn.kit tot perjury against the
Defendant, in swearing the peace befOre Mr. Rairl;
the 'Magistrate at Bow-street, against the Prosecutor,
Mr..Sartittel Naylor; who was a pers'on of prOperty; A
and Iforn this intitnnities, very much in the power of
the Defendant and her husband, Stephen Taylor._
Tlie Defendant had sWorn that,Mr. Nayld as.
saulted her, and threatened to do'Nerbodity harm,
and upo'n the infOrdiation being produced; it ap-
pered that she' hid charged him with assaulting het
iu Mary-W-bone, with an umbrella, anclthac,; at
the same time, " he had threatened in cU't her dowel
and destiny her with a pistol," Upon reading the
indictment, instead oh f te words " same,'. it, was,
stated :as if the infortrisitiOn had been "aithe Same
tune.'" The indidment chargedtheTerjured articles
of the peace not only to be . set but, according- 4.9'
their e.ifect; bdt yet his Lord4iiiithought that tiler -f
ShOuld have set out the Woids truly, although the
word " same might haVe been explained,. by an ..
i'maendb, as meai-iing `` same tinie.",
The DefendantWastlerefOre zOquitted:
THE KING V., ANN WINDUS. •
. This was alio. an iddiatnot for perjury.
.The %-
Defendant was servant to a Mr. karrop Green, of
Kensington, who broUght an action "s,gainst'a Mr.;
Finch, a ColleCtor of Tame; for .404ngto,optiQr
stande?; in ' hintt—a pickpoeltet, and :Using
other abusive language,'. for wl).icl) pira..7,brought
an a'aion the Court of Common Pleas. „ that
adion, chiefly upon the 'testimony otibe..Detenciactie
,'Mr, Green' reeoVere4,.7sti'a received 501. datliaBes,

_