The Sun.
London, England, 1809-07-20 00:00:00

HORROCKS V. JUVP.

Mr. HEALDE yesteiday read an affidavit of•
Jupp, stating, thar'he had never encouraged the vi-
sits of the minor, P. Horrocks, at Mr. Esdale's, in
Baker-street, but, on the contrwry, had remonstrated
against them ; that as far as kinguage could go, he
bad done every thing in his power to prevent the
visits of the minor at his ownl.)ouse, &c. &c.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, this day„ that he
had read over Mr, Jupp's ffidavit, and was 'dis-
posed to place confidence in what that Gentleman
had stated. The question its to his committal was.
therefore at an end, and he was discharged from.
any farther attendance on the Coart. With regard
t(; the young Lady his daughter, as well as the young
Gentleman, Mr. Horrocl4, his Lordship would make
no order at present.

JOHNVON AND OTHEttS V. NAPIER AND OTHERS.
-This svas,an appeal from a decision of the Master
of the Bolls. It appeared that about the year 1798 a
considetable number of the bakers in 'London bad
formed themselves into a Society to be.called The
Amicable Society of Bakers. The tallied of the in-
stitution was to provide, that each of the Members,
on arriving at the age of 60, should have an annuity
of 601. for his life, and the life of his widow; the
funds for which were to be provided for by the guar=
terly or annual contributions of the Members, the
amount of which was of course proportioned to the
age fit which every Member entered the Society ;-.
but ,no one was to be entitled to the benefits of the
tun 4 before he had been seven years at least a Mem-
ber of the Society. About the year 180.6, the Com-
mittee of Management began to suspeEt that the
funds and annual receipts- would be insufficient to
cover the probable annual expenditure, and the plan
of the institution was referred, first to Mr. Morgan,
and then to Mr. Fairman, two eminent Attornies,
who delivered different opinions. It was suppos-
ed, however, that the calculations ;upon which the
whole of- the plan rested, had not been properly
made; and at a General Meeting called by the Corn-
Mittee, the matter was taken into consideration. In
one of the articles of the original agreement it was
provided, that lithe funds should be on the decline,
the Committee- might call upon the Members for
additional subscriptions. But the General' Meet.
ing, notwithStanding this article, came to a reso-
lution, by a groat majority, that the Society should
-be dissolved, and that the funds, amounting in
all to about 18,0001. should be divided among
the_members, in proportion to the sums which they
had itidividually contributed, and the interest upon
the same. This was opposed by several of the mem-
bers who had already become annuitants, and the
matter was broughf before the Master of the Rolls,
on the ground that if the plan was founded on er—
roneous calculations, this was not a reason for break-
ing up the .institution, but rather for enforcing that
article 'of the agreement, which enabled the Society
to call for additional 'contributions from the mem-
bers, and even from the annuitants themselves:
The MASTER of the ROLLS decided for the annui-
tants on this occasion, and decreed that that article
should be enforced, which enabled the Society to in=
crease the subscriptions.
From this decree of his Honour an appeal was now
brought before the Lord Chancellor, and Sir S. Ito-
mill), and Mr. Johnson opened the case on the part
of the annuitants, who were Defendants on this ap-
peal. Farther hearing to-morrow.

COURT OF KlNG's BENCH, Tin? 17.

KELLY V. DICKSON.

This was an a&ion on a policy of insurance upon'
some flax-seed which was to come from America,
in February last, and upon which there was a con-
siderable. loss luring the voyage. On account of
its arriving too late, the Plaintiff abandoned the
whole cargo to the Underwriters ?n the month of
June.

Lord ELLENZOROUGH thought he had no right
to take so much time to make his option, but
ought to have given notice of his intention to
the Underwriters before. On that part of the cargo,
the verdi& would therefore be for the Defendant ;
bUt as to the other part, which consisted of staves,
it was referred to Mr/Waddington, one of the
Special Jury, to ascertain whether the average loss
was or was not above three per cent.

And the aC•tual price it bore on that 20th
was the standard to which to repair for the cMulages
upon t his declaration ; which stated that the Defendant
sold this wool. in December, and agreed to deliver it
on the 20th of January at the market-price it bore
on the- day of sale. It Was true that the Plaintiff
waited until the 28th ; bdt that ixas not his contract,
and if he chused to wait, and the price of wool rose
in the interim, it was his own fault. He could not
recover any thing on that account., unless he had
declared,, specially, that the agreement had been
extended for those eight days ; and of this opinion
was Lord.Ellenborough, and therefore, for want of
that statement in the declaration, the Plaintiff 'lost
about a thousand pounds, the damages given by the
verdict} being-confined to the price of the article on'
the 20th—which was 21601.