1778-01-20 (static/transcriptions/1778/01/013.jpg)

1778. 1 Term. [Tuesday] Jan: 20.

disputed on two grounds, first that the Under-Writer, was not acquainted with the truth of the kind of Respondentia Bond which he insured; and secondly, because the truth of the whole transaction being now known it appear’d that the first Transaction was in effect an Insurance or Assurance, and that therefore the Policy sign’d by Mr. Guinand was in effect, a Re-Assurance, and therefore unlawful, by the Act of 19 G. 2d. Ch. 373 [Pisk edit. Oct. Vol: p] and therefore void.
It was proved that this first transaction was thus; Mr. Donald having property in the Snow Assistance and the goods laden on her gave Mr. Bondfeild the Respondentia in Question, but Mr. Bondfeild did not actually lend the money therein recited to be lent, but gave Mr. Donald a Bond for that money payable with usual interest in Calcutta where the bond is absolutely payable, and does not depend on the event of a Voyage or any other contingence.
It was proved that this Transaction was of a kind very common in Bengal, Madras, Bombay and all the Company’s settlements in India, and known by the name of Exchange Respondentia Bonds. The Evidence was all heard, and then the Argument appointed for Monday next.