Star.
London, England, 1827-05-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, SIA2 VI.
Several appeal canwir were 'argued; but aothiat of
public interest occurred in the Court.
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAT 21.
CREsswiLL V. LORD DUDLIR AND WARD.
Mr. PILFYN, on behalf of the plaintiff, moved that this
cause, which had been dispoled of for want of prose..l
cution, might be again brought forward, on the groend
that the defendant's solicitor had not given due notice
to the solicitor of the plaintiff of his intention to move
the Court that the capsirshould be struck out for the

reason stated. 1
The VICE-CHANCELLOR observed, that similar ap-
plications had been.repeatedly made to Lord Eldon,
bat invariably refused, and his. Honour could see no
reason why this case should be an exception to the ge-
neral rule.—Motion refused with costs.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAI M.
THE KING V. THE MATOR AND CORPORATION or LONDON.
This was a Rule Nisi for a. mandamus, obtained last
Term, to be directed to the Mayor and Cot ',oration of
London, commanding them to swear in H. Winchester,
Etq. to the place and office of Alderman of the Ward
of Vintry, to which he claimed to hate been duly
elected, by the Wardmote. It will be recollected. that
Mr. Winchester and Mr. Wilde, were candidates at the
last election for an Alderman of Vintry Ward. . Mr.
Winchester having been elected, Mr. Wilde demanded
a scrutiny, and the Court of Aldermen, upon an inves-
tigation into the merits of the coat, declared Mr. Win.
cheater's election to be void, arid Ordered a new election.
The second election was favourable to Mr. Wilde, who
was declared to be duly eleaed. The ground of the
present motion was, that the Lord Mayor and Alder-
men had no jurisdiction to determineupori the validity
cf the election rf an Alderman, and that Mr. Winches-
ter, having been duly elected upon the first election, the
Mayor andAlderrnen were bound to swear him into office.
The ATTORNer•GENERAL, the RECORDER, the COM.'
MOH SERGRANT, Mr. BOLLARD, Mr. CAMPBELL. midi
Mr. PARKA, now chewed agaittst the rule at coasidersk
able length, and contended, firs', that the Mayor and,
Aldermen had the exclusive jurisdiction of determiting
the validity of an election to the office of Alderman ;
and, second, that at all events, the only proper mode of
trying the ques•ion at law, was by a quo warranto in-
formation against Mr. Wilde, calling upon him to shew
by what authority he held the office of Alderman.
The SoLtcyrost-G EN ERA L was proceeding to argue in
support of the rule, when
Lord TRNTRRDIN interposed, and suggested to the
parties the propriety -of taking issue upon some of the
most material matters stated in the affidavitits, with a
view to a speedy as well as a more solemn determina-
tion of the points intended to be ditcusted. It was clear,
that so determine these on motion would not be sails.
factory, because neither party could have the opinion of
a C urt of Error upon the judgment of this Court.—
And, supposing the mandamus were granted, still there
would be great difficulty in making such a return
thereto, as would embrace all the questions intended to
be raised. The best course, therefore, would lan,
to agree upon certain issues, in which the points
might be more conveniently discussed ; and in tbd
mean time t'sis rule might stand over unt I the resuk of
the issues was known. Issue might be taken on thise
four propositions; first, whether there was an immemo•
rial usage for the Mayor and Aldermen to decide con,
elusively upon the validity of an election to the office of
Alderman ? second, whether such usage had been abro-
gated by bn. Act r f that Common Council in 1714, and
by the statute II Geo. I. e. 18? third, whether Mr.
Winchester had been duly elected? and fourth, whether
the scrutiny hid been duly proceeded in?
The Counsel desi ed time to consider of this suggest-
(ton on the part of the Court, and said they would then-
tion the case again oat a future day.
At one o'clock the Lord Chief Justice herd his Sit-
tings in Term.
ROLLS COURT. MAT et.

ASSIGNEES OF HENRY YAUNTLEROT AGAINST THE DI
RECTORS OF THE AMICABLE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

Thin ifiii was filed for tee purpose of ricorerine horn
the defendants the Amount of a policy of insurance,
eff, cted by Henry FAuntleroy upon his own life, in
January, 1815, about four months Wine the commis-
sion of the felony which subiequentlp conducted
this man to the scaffold. ' It appears that the
An icab.e Society is founded opals 'the principle of It
general participation ,of profits antra risk by all the
persons who effect insurances with the society. And the'
exceptions made by other companies against lives falling
by their own hands, or those of the public executioner,
are not contained in the policies of this company. in Oct.
1819, Fauntleroy assigned his interest in the policy to
Sir E. Home and Mr. Bitch, hi trust, for the benefit of a
certain person whom, to use Mr. Sugden's language,
.4 it is not necessary to name." It is matter of public
notoriety that M. Fauntleroy was executed for forgery
in 1824. The bill was filed for the recovery of 6,0001.
the value of 25 shares in the Company; in which shales,
by the terms of the policy; Mr. Fauntleroy became bene-
,ficially interested. It was urged by Counsel for the
defence, that Mr. Fauntleroy having dove an act of
which he knew the consequence to be the losi of his life,
was excluded from the s •ciety, and forfeited the
franchises which, by the insurance, he had obtslined its
the corporation.
Mr. SHOONN, for the plaintiffs, relied principally upon
the terms cif the policy, which contained no exception
whatever in reference to any particular manner in which
We may be destroyed. It was life absolutely and gene-
rally which was insured ; and the particular manner' in'
which it may happen to be destroyed afforded no ground
of retho once to the present Bill.
Sir JOHN LICACH, in delivering his judgment upon
the case, began by saying that the Directors of the
Amicable Society had, by re►isting the present bill,
faithfully discharged their duty to the general body of
Proprietors, as the effect of allowing the claim under
the policy would be to diminish the profits of ill per•
sons who bad insured in the same year as Fauntleroy.
The question was, whether it was fit to send the isine
for trial to a emit of law ? His Honour declared that
upon that subject he did not feel the same difficulty as had
been felt by Gentlemen at the bar. It had been contended
for the Directors, that the claim ought not to be allowed,
because the death of the defendant was the molt of his
own conduct. His Honour could not allow that prin-
ciple to be a sound one. In order to defeat a claim
upon such grounds, it was necessary to add that the
party had committed the act with a view to defraud the
insurance company. If the principle were otherwise, it
would be singular, indeed, as every imprudent exposure
to danger, or every gratificatiOn of an inordinate appe.
the, which may end in death, would have the effect of
defeating all claims under such policies of insurance ,