The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-11-12 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, ll' ESTM INSTER, Nov. 11.

BORCITARD V. ALLNUTT.

The Solace ron-Geerttat. moved for a rule to •
order in the Court of Chancery, an a very proper
show cause why the verdict for the Plaintiff in this .•
one too, that no al lava were ever admitted to appear •
rase should not he set aside, and a nonsuit he entered.
itt • Commissions of Bankrupt. The Bankrupt, in
It was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship
this case, hid tendered both his names'at the office,
Tugent, from Gottenburgh to Rostock. The ques- •
but the second name hid been rejected. The cause
lion was, whether the assured in communicating to
of his being known by this second name was, flea he
the Underwriters, in the beginning of September, - had At one thne. Leen a member of a religious.
that the vessel in question had sailed with the last '
convoy from Gottenburgh, but that, in consequence body in France, bY whom he was obliged to ndurt
of eoutrary winds she was supposed to be still in or the name of Piece Elezee; and he had-been known
iedifferently by one or other of those names both on
near the two Belts, had given them all the inform-
the Continent and in England. There was no fraud,
(ion that could be required of them ; or if, on the
h
contrary, being themselves iti possession of the fact ; itiaemr:foorie,viin eo
rthe Bill question, being in the
Elezee, the Plaintiff in the action
that the last convoy alluded to had sailed from Got-
knowine him well by both names.—Rule to shew
tenbureh on the 2Stlt July, and %ins still unheard of ;
cause granted. • •
at the dale of their advices of the 20th August, h
they!
.avere not hound to have communicated to the Un- l
derwriters, that the 28th July was the day on which
the convoy in question sailed. The Jury. ander
.the impression, that the Underwriters, by using due
diligence to inform themselves of the fact, might
have aieluainted themselves with the date of the sail-
ing of the last convoy from Gottenburgh, found for
the Plaintiff.. And the present motion was- founded.
on an affidavit, by the Agent who had underwritten
the policy in question for the Defendant, certifying
that he had Ito moans of ascertaining the date of sail-
big of any sech convoy, and that if he had been
aware that the convoy alluded to had actually elated
on the 28th July, ho should not have tutderwrittea.
the policy, but should have considered- the vessel iu
question a misiting ship. -r .
Bade to shew cause granted.
DOE DEM UEVAN v. CREW.
Mr. Serjeant Less moved for a rule to shew cause
why the verdict for thu Defendant should not be set'
aside, and a new tri,l be granted in this CitSP. The
I only question Was, whether John Crew, the Wm-,
• dant, was or was not the legitimate son of John and
Mary Crew. The Defendant was born in the year
17S1, and the evidence which ;brought in doubt the
marriage of his father and mother, was the declaim--
tion of the mother herself: ller declaration wenito,
this; that John Crew and she set off together to go
to Scotland,- but stopped .before.they got there; that
he gate her a-bit of paper, which she took, and that
they then zeturned• igalugto Devizes. The material
' witness fer7the Defendant on the trial oa:s'a womaq
of 'the name of Thompson, who was assistant • in
bearding:sthoot at 14.1tich...the Defendant's Tether
Hied. . Khirstitelik, :that thb Defendanertleether was
then under age; and Crqictrat the music-master into

. -