Star.
London, England, 1826-12-20 00:00:00

Mrs. Stephens proved the death of Lady iluninclt, which took
place in January, 1821. She could not (peak as to her age.
James Gibbs was the subscribing witness to the grant
of annuity. lie stated that lie had money of the plain-
tiff's in his hands previous to tl e date of the annuity.
He had negotiated that grant of the annuity for Lady
Ilunlock, and on the granting of the annuity, a policy
was effected in the Pelican. It was he who conducted
that transacti,n. He made no communication to the
office. Himself and partner were both Directors in
the Star Company : tvey had been insti 'mental in
raising it, and the business of that Company was cairied
on in their house. Mr. Potter and the other defendant
same Directors in August, 1820. Witness had commu•
nication with the defendants after he heard the annuity
was to be taken up. He had no doubt but that he,
stated to them the benefits which would arise from the
risk. The policy was opened. On cancelling the annuity
at the Pelican Office, he received upwards of 901. It
was usual when policies were cancelled to make a return
of that sort. He believed Weld made an application
to the office before the policy was taken up. Himself
and. partner accepted insurances for the Company.
A resolution of the Star Company, passed in 1818,
was then read, by which it appeared that authority had
been given to Howard and Gibbs by the Company to
accept of any insurances they should think proper.
Examination continued.—The witness stated that
2451. was the rate of premium, which had been paid at
the Pelican Office. He did not recollect what had been
paid on the same sum at the Star. It was in January,
1821, that he heard Lady Hunlock was nioie than 61
years of age. It was not witness, but Lady Hunlock
herself, who had made the tepresentation of her age.

Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN addressed the Jury for the
defendants. He should prove that there had, in this case,
been a gross miszepresentaii 11 with regard to the age
of Lady Hunlock. He would bring it home to Weld
that he was well acquainted with her age before the ap-
plic.ation was made at the office with a view to get the
policy cf insurance redeemed.

The LORD CHIEN Junto& here interrupted the Learn-
ed Sergeant, and inquired if there would be any objec-
tion to make a reduction in the premium equal to the
real age of the assured.

Mr. Sergeant VA minx continued.—He intended to
slew tat W‘li had been acquainted with the age of
Laity ['unlock previous to her death, and at a time
when he could have made the necessary alteration in
the policy. He would produce a certificate by which
it would appear that the age of the Lady was greater
than had been stated. Ile should undoubtedly prove
that a misrepresentation had been made, and should by
that mans entitle himself to their verdict.
A certificate was then put in and read, by which it appeared that
Lady Ilutilock was born on the Bth of June, 1752, and was buried
en the ad of Februart, 1820, aged 68.
Jame, Mitchell was then called. He was Secretary to
the Star Company ; they had adopted the same age as
the Pel'can had. He remembered Weld, jun. coming
to the office about the end of December, 1820, and
asked what the Directors would give his father, on sot--
reader ng the policy ? Witness said there were some
circumstances attending that policy which would pre-
vent his acting without the consent of the Beard of Di-
rectors. Shelved him a copy of the policy, and told him
he had been informed there was an error in the age.—
Weld denied that there was, at first; but afterwards ad-
mitted that there was a small error. He then asked
Witness what would be the premium on a life of seventy
years, and inquired whether the error would vitiate the
policy ? Witness then :hewed him a verbatim copy of
the policy, and desired him to judge f..r himself : then
[urged him to get the error cm recttd, as in case of the
death of the assured, it might involve them in a law-
suit, which was not at all to be desired ; to which he re-
plied, that he thought the di, ectors would have the libe-
rality to pay the policy. Witness said the Directors would
have no right to be liberal with the shareholders' money.
He then left the office. A resolution was come to at
the neat Board that no alteration should be made in the
general regulations; consequently the plaintiffs must
snake up the deficiency. Witness then called on the
plaintiff, and informed him of the resolution of the,
Board, and that they would, as usual, give him 25 per
cent. on surrendering the policy. He seemed to object,
and witness urged him to get a legal policy, and he
would be paid withoUt further dispute, but assured him
he would be paid on no other grounds. He then re-
felted him to his son; the son called again at the office,
and it was agreed by the Directors, that his father
soaould be paid his policy, provided be paid up the de-
ficient), from the time the risk first commenced with the
policy stamp, and that he should produce a certificate
of her age. Tie son went away, but called again in a
day or twa, and witness sheaved him the amount he
should have to pay, assuming that tbtre had been an,
error of two }ears in the age. The son made various
Objections, saying it was impossible to ascertain the age,
and wished the policy to tie grayed without any thing
being said about age, and objected to the principle on
which the money had been calculated, saying also that
his father thought the terms very hard. He concluded
by saying he would not agree to the terms, and left the
office. Witness saw no more of either of them until after
the death of Lady Hunlock.
Cross-exa mined.—lnNovember, 1820, discovered the
age was wrong. Did not take a Minute of it, but took
good care to recollect it. Witness told Weld he should
require the py ernisim to be paid up. Did not tell him
he had pf cketted 90/. Witness swore that Weld said he
would not accede to those terns.

Oliver Carmichael colifiriued the testimony of the
last witness, and stated that young Weld said he would
consent to pay the yrtmiirni from the time that the
risk commenced w•i:li the Star.

Mr. Sergeant WILDE then caEed Mr. Weld, junior.
He stated that he had a conversation with the last wit-
ness in December, 1820, respecting the poky. He did
mit then inloint'the witness that there was a mistake of
two years in the age of tke as used. Had rally seen him
once since the 18th January, 1821. Witness did not on
that occasion refuse to accede to the terms proi•osed.
Co oss.esainitied.—Thei e could be no difficulty in get-
ting a certificate of the age. He admitted, however,
that be did not know then when Lady Hunlock was
baptized, what was her maiden name,- or anything, in
•fact, of her birth and pat entage. He did not remember
that Mite•eli had told him thine was an error. Wivess
is an amp Key. A I.erson* limed Hunt had informed
his lather th,t he frated the .ige in the policy was wrung,
but he would swear that I lout did not say e was 70
years•of age. Witness went to the (.flier, and bad a
communication with Mitchell, b-