Star.
London, England, 1825-11-26 00:00:00

HAYWARD V. PITT.

This was an action by Ann H ryward against James
Pitt, for a breach of promise of marriage, which:came on
for trial before Mr. Baron Garrow, at the last Assizes
for the county of Worcester. It was then stated by Mr.
Jervis, that the plaintiff was a young woman of iesp-ct-
able connexions, and who had borne an irreproachable
character, until she became acpaisited with the defend-
ant, by whom, after an engagement of marriage, she
became pregnant. The Learned Judge, on this state-
ment, suggested the possibility of an arrangement, by
which the suit might end in marriage, which was ac-
ceded to, and the de endarn, engaging to marry within
a month, submitted to s verdict for 1,0001. as the gua-
rantee of his promise. On a former day Mr. Ru sell
obtained a Itulav_to shew cause why •the posters should
not be stayed in the hands of the officer till further or-
der, on an affidavit of the defendant, alleging that the
marriage had been postponed only by the accouchement
of the plaintiff, and that, as soon as possible afterwards,
he had waked ember in a chaise with a I:cense,ente eating
her to accompany him to Worcester to be married, but
that she refused him, choosing to retain the verdict.
Mr. Caldron' now showed CAW against this rule, and was pro-
ceeding to state that the refusal est the plaintiff :trust Irons the con-
duct of the defendant, when
The Cons, suggested, that as the verdict for 1,000/. could not, in
any event, stand, it weintd he hetter at once to refer the clic to
some Gentleman at the BAF to decide what compensation should

be awarded. •
Tids proposal was accepted. and the case referred.
The Loan Cwase Jut:rice did tint come into Court, but Mr. Jos-
, lice ELIVIAV expressed a hope that he would be able to do so tu-

. .
morrow. Mr. *ooler applied to the Court to know when it wouLl
be Convenient t 6 hear him ? and Mi.. Justice U. replied, hi hoped
tomorrow, lithe Lord Chief Juitice should be able to attend:

COURT OF 6031310 N PLEAS, Merman 25.
STRONG V. trEniralr.
This was an action, On a policy of insurance, tiled
before Lord Chief justice Mar, at the sittings- in
London. The plaintiff and 4e6ndant are. members of
the Pacific Mutual Assurance Associa ion. The policy
was effected on the ship Witerlcg. It was a time policy
and was to continue from Fhrtsary, 1822, to Februaty.
1823. The ship having 'reteitiEd some damage in the
interim, the plaintiff sued-on his policy, and obtained
a verdict, subject to the opinion:of thist Court on several
points. The principal of these were—first, whether the
Pacific Association was not a partnership, within the
meaning of a statute of the 6th George 1. by which all
partnerships For effecting policies of insurance, except
the Royal Exchange Assurance Company, were fur.
bidden ; and, secondly, whether a legal tender had not
been made?

The COUKT were occupied a great part of yesterday and this day
in hearing the arguments pro and con on those points. When they
were concluded,
_ _ _

Lord Chief Justice Barr observed, that he was glad
that the legality of this Association had been brought
under discussion. He at first had some doubts whether

it did not come within the 6th of George I. but on mare
mature consideration, he felt convinced that that Act
did not at all affect that S iciety. At first, on looking
at the names subscribed, he thought they were as,
securities for each other (seeing no particular sum an- '
nexed to the name of each); but on looking over the
articles, he found it was most distinctly stated, that
each member who subscribed the policy andettook for
himself, and himself only. He, therefore, thought, that
the presumption of partnership was completely ne-
gatived. As to the plea of a tender, the evidence was,
thallothe attorney of the defendant went to the attorney
of the plaintiff, and tendered a certain sum, amounting
to what the several subscribers acknowledged them-
selves liable to, but less than what the plaintiff claimed
as the whole of his loss, and at the rime time said, that
was for the whole of his demand. This he (Lord Chief
Justice Best) did not think amounted to a legal tender,
as no wider could be legal, if accompanied with a
condition, by accepting which, the plaintiff would`be
precluded fratiany farther claim. • On this-point, there,
fore, as well as the fame*: jedgaient of the,Coort
was for the plaintiff 31!,A•
The other Judges concur's:dim this aphis&
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Neuritis* its.