The Sun.
London, England, 1802-02-11 00:00:00

COURT OF KING's BENCH, FEE. 10.

TM/ ATTOXNEV-GENERAL moved for a Rule to
;hew cause why information in the nature of a Quo
(Varranto should .not be filed against a Gentleman
in the City of Litchfield, calling on him to shew
by what authority he claims to be a Freeman of
that City, upon the same grounds
mipa §ihose on which
the Court had already granted R •

Several other motions•, on the same 'subjeet, were
made on similar grountA by another Learned Gen-
tleman, and Rules were granted to shew causeale
next Term.

Mr. ERSKINE moved for a Rule to shew 'cause,
.why a Warrant of Attorney, given under very par-
ticular circumstances, should not lie delivered up to
be cancelled. It was a Warrant of Attorney given
by a Husband to a Trustee, for the purpose of se-
curing to his wife 601. a,ye:.r, the husband and
wife having lived together so unhappily that they
agreed to separate, and the • husband allowed the
wife that sum for her maintenance. He submitted,
that the Court would. entertain this Motion from the
analogies of the LaW, although he was not aware
of any case that was exa*tly like it. The ground--
on which he moved this, was, That since the Exe,
cution of this Warrant of Attorney, the wife lived
in open Adultery. This .Warrant of Attorney was
giVen as a collateral security for the payment of this,
Annuity. This judgment, if contested before the
Court, would be a bad one, if entered upon such a
Warrant, he contended—and if so, the Warrant it-
self was a bad one. This Gentleman would have a
legal defence to an aftion for the payment of this
Annuity, for, most undoubtedly, if the wife lived
in Adultery, she forfeited her maintenance. . Upon
analogy, therefore, he submitted, that the Warrant
of Attorney ought to be delivered up to be cancel-
led, on the ground, that the wife lived in Adultery.
The date of the Annuity-Deed; and also of the
Warrant Of Attorney, was the 28th of Jan. t 800.
There Was a case in 2 Atkyns, 272, which Mr.
ERScINE said, had some Analogy to this.
Mr. Justice LAWRENCI!, asked if there was any
proof
.that this Annuity was to be paid to this •
woman only during her continence—was that so ex-
pressed in the Deed or die Warrant Of Attorney ?
Mr. EksiLit:•E said there certainly was not, but
,it was to be presuMed that a man would never grant
his wife a licence to Adultery.

Mr. Justice GROSE said, that this Warrant of
Attorney, in its original Concoction was good ; it
was not like a Bond or Warrant of Attorney given
upon-usurious considerations ; 4.4 were, the Court
might entertain the motion.—Where the instrument
was originally faulty and bad, the Court would
attend to a motion for setting it aside ; but here it
wa&aiginally good, and therefore the Court could
not set it aside.—Mr. ERSKINE was therefore told
he should take nothing for his motion.

DUBLIN, FE‘B. 6.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, FEB. 4,180 z.

SIR JOHN FERNS, KNT. V. THE DIRECTORS OE -filE

SUN INSURANCE COMPANY.

This was an Anion at iris; /rins,,,on a Policy
of Insurance, on the Life of the late Thos. Maley,
Esq. for r zool.
John Heny deposed; that he was in the employ.
ment of Sir John Ferns, in August 1800, and-did
attend him to the Office of ,the Sun insurance. Coin.
pany, to make a Policy on the Life of the late Mr.
Whaley ; that when arrived at the Office he. met
Mr. Needham, One of the Defendants in this Cause,
and a Direaor of the Company ; thew was alsoNr.
Campbell, Secretary to 'the Company, to whort.he
mentioned his business. Mr. Whaley came there
by appointment, to whom Mr. Needham turned in
conversation with the freedom of an intimate, and
made no inquiry of 'Witness- respeCting his age
Witness himself then applied aloud to Wha-
ley, in the presence of Mr. Needham and Sir John
Ferns, what his age Might have been ? He replied,
33 years. they did not insure of that age
Witness then went over to the Secretary to insure
him at thirty-four years, who, observed to him that
he was right, and. that it was, better to be at the
safe side ; he was accordingly insured at 34. years.
—"Witness saw a printed Form of Insurance at the
Office. The Insurance, Witness further deposed,
was completed on the day he stated, the i sth of
August, but. he did not receive the Policy for many
days. succeeding. Witness asked the Secretary,
after making the Policy, if there was any thing
farther to be done ? Who replied; there was only to
pay the premium ; he accordingly paid it, but was
told that the' Policy was not ready, but it 'should
be sent to his office. After some days had elapsed,
and no Policy sent, Witness went for. it to the
office of the Insurance Company ; it was there filled
for him .by order of the Company, he presumed,
Witness having- nothing whatsoever to do with the
filling of it. He would not be permitted to take
the Policy without signing an averment of:it.—
' [Here the. averment was produced to Witness., who
recognized his signature.] It was then, together
with the Policy and Scale of Insurance, deposited
with the Court, to be hereafter referred to.
The following point was then, by consent, re-
served for future argument : 66 Whether the In-
surance of Mr. Whaley's life, at 34. years of age, on
the isth of August, he having completed his 34. th
year in the preceding February—was such a fraud
as to vitiate the Policy ?"

Respeting three mouths interest supposed to be
due on the principal, the Defendants' Agent said,
that should not be disputed if the pitihcip4l was de-
cided against them,
The Jury, without hesitation, found for the Plain-
tiff 12.001. with sixpence costs.

On Friday the body of a seaman was washed on
shore under the Hoe, at Plymouth. It was in a
dreadful condition, both arms and head being off,
and the body much mangled. The Coroner's In-
quest found a Verdia of Drowned.

LONDON : 'Primed by, BUCHANAN WMI LLAN, (of 13ow-S treeis Covent-Garden); and Published by WILLIAM.,ARNIIGtIR Scit r-s, (of 'Horse-ferry. road, Westminster;;
At the Svir•.OFpzCE, No, 112) Strand ; where Advertisemtirts, Oiyiers for the Paper, Lepers fOr the Edito-r, &c. (post-paid), must be addressed,