The Sun.
London, England, 1830-07-20 00:00:00

"VISIT OF THE KING AND QUEEN TO THE
EXHIBITION AT SOMERSET-HOUSE.

Their Majesties, accompanied by the Duke and Duchess,
'and Prince George of Cumberland, together with several
-other branches of the Royal Family, after having honoured
Earl Bathurst with their company to breakfast, this morn-
ing proceeded in :five .of 'the Royal carriages to view
the paining; at present exhibiting at Somerset House.
' The President of the Royal Academy was in attendance to
receive their Majesties, and, accompanied by a great number
• of the Academicians, conducted the Royal party through the
. different apartments. We understand that their Majesties
expressed themselves highly gratified with the exhibition.
As it was nut generally known that their Majesties would
honour the Royal Academy with a visit this morn-
ing, there were not so many persons assembled to
witness the peocessiora, as there doubtless would otherwise
have been ; but noVvithstanding this, a considerable crowd
had collected before the Royal party left, who evinced
satery demonstrwition of the liveliest enthusiasm and pa-
ll:whim, We were hippy to observe that both the
King and Q,ueen appeared in perfect health. His
Majesty wu, promenading in St. James's Park for a
long time ast night, unattended. The King reviews the
Life "24' (la to-morrow, and other detachments of the
I'll'7 m'. the following (Thursday) morning.

'LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.) v

ROLLS' COURT.
PRACTICE OF Tux COURT.--HOWL V. lIASIN.

At the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. Coorien
;requested leave to mention this case to his Honour. On
the sth of the present month the Court had dismissed the
bill with costs, on the ground of the: great delay that had
taken place in inatituting the suit. The motive the
.: Learned Counsel had in view in mentioning the case was,
to ascertain the precise grounds on which the Court bad
• —come to the decision it had, as he (Mr. Cooper) was
. much afraid, in consequence of what had occurred within
the last twenty-foUr hours in another branch of the Court,
' ,that the decision would often be referred to as a precedent.
The short facts of the case were-etbese :—The property
claimed by the bill is only a !egad), of between 2001. and
• SOW. Extreme neglect had taken place in bringing the
Ault to a hearing. The legacy wee left as long ago as
-1790. The party, a married woman, delayed filing her
bill For fifteen years. Another fifteen years elapsed before
the suit was brought to a hearing, no proceedings what-
eser taking place in the interim. The Learned Counsel
Aid not mention this to the Court because be was instructed
to prepare a petition of appeal, but because he thought
.other grounds in the case had been overlooked by the
Court, and the present decision would be looked upon as a
recedent in cases where similar delays had taken place.
_According to the present state of the Lord Chancellor's
!Paper, if hi, Lordship made the same progress hereafter
as be had done during the last six months, the
:petition of appeal would come on to be heard
eomewhere about the beginning of the next century;
•therefore, during all that time, supposing the Lord Chan-
• cellor's judicial and natural life to extend to that period,
the decision in the present case would be considered as a
•precedent. The Court must be perfectly aware that a
delay of fifteen years did pot bar a legacy. The delay of
enmity yews, accompanied with additional circumstances,
,enabled the Court to presume payment of the legacy. The
'only question now was, whether the delaying the suit for
*fifteen years was a reason for dismissing the bill. The
*Court was very much struck with the circumstances of
the delay that had liken place, and dismissed the
bill with costs, wittiest stating its reason, for
doing so. He (Mr. Cooper) had never beard of a
case where the Court had dismissed the Bill on the ground
of delay. He recollected a case where nine years elapsed
before the cause came on for hearing.
The MASTER or THE ROLLS bad no precise recollection
of the case, but he had no doubt he should be of the same
opinion if he were to bear it again. It was not to be
considered that the delay of lb years was an absolute bar t
but all the circumstances of the case must be taken into
consideration. The Court never intended to lay down any
absolute rule.
The ease therefore stands exactly as it did after the Court
bad dismissed the bill.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
W♦RP.ANTAY Of ♦ 11010111...... EARL V. PATTIASOX.
Mr. Serjeant ANDRAWS stated, that this was en action
.hrought by the plaintiff against the defendant on a war-
ratatry of 'a horse. The circumstances of the case were
briefly as follows :--The plaintiff is * solicitor, possessed
'of considerable property, residing at Romford. Early is
-the month of February last, having occasion to come up
'to town, he put up at Millbank's livery .stables, in London-
wall ; whilst there he saw three horses in one of the stables
which attracted his particular attention. On asking to
whom they belonged, hewn informed they were the property
of the defendant, and that they were standing at livery
for talc Whilst this conversation was going on the de-

,fendent came up, and on the plaintiff asking him whether
he were willing to part with one of them, a mare which
Jae pointed out, the latter replied, that the fact was, they
!were all three of them such especial favourites, he could
mot bring his mind to part with any one of them, unless
gay lot. This the plaintiff agreed to, and the result was,
the purchase of the mare in question for the sum of 30
.guineas. The defendant gave a written warrantry of her
being perfectly sound in every respect. A day or two
subsequent to the bargain having been made, the
mare was sent down to the plaintiff's by the Rum-
ford carrier. On the journey, however, she evinced
repeated symptoms of not being perfectly sound. She
was continually staring about and whisking round at
rim,' object whisk met her sight, and the carrier was
finally obliged to mount her, for the purpose of getting her
on. O his arrival at the plaintiff's, be communicated his
sirspieions to hint as to the soundness of the rpare, and on
lasibsequent examination it was ascertained that she was
Bahouring under a disease technically termed "back eyed."
After various unsuccessful attempts to dispose of her, the
[plaintiff at length sold her for. 131. The present action
,svas brought to recover the sum of 2'71. the difference
•of the purchase money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant,
with the additional expenses he had necessarily been put to
in keeping her.
The warrantry of the horse was put in and read.
Mr. Serjerust TAnDY, who conducted the case for the
defendant, submitted that this could not be received in
evidence, inasmuch as the instrument upon which it was
written was not stamped; the Court, however, over-ruled
the objection.
A great number of witnesses were then called, to prove
the sale. and delivery of the mare in question, &c. Two
veterinary surgeons who were examined, concurred in
stating that the disease under which the mare was at pre-

sent labouring, was a confirmed cataract in both her eyes
aid in the expression of their opinion, that she must have
been suffering under the same complaint at the time of sale.
‘, It came out is the cross-examination that for some time
previous to the sale, the mare had been kept closely
wrapped up in one of the, warmest stables in Milbank 's
yard, but that en her journey to Rumford the cloths
were removed from her; and further, that some three
weeks afterwards, the plaintiff, accompanied by his wife,
bed been at the livery-stables, on which occasion he bad
"Pressed himself highly satisfied with his bargain ; he
esid he had hunted with the mare, and would not part
with her for fifty guineas.
Fur the defendant Mr. Sergeant 'Fanny contended that
at the time of the sale the mare was perfectly free from
blemieb, end he should call witnesses to establish this fact.
The Learned Scrjeant was then proceeding to lay great
elms on the evidence elicited on the cross-examination of
the second witness, when
The Loan Guise Jurrtcr observed, that no proof bad
been adduced of the plaintiff having ever made any cons-
fdeint to the defendant on the sultect of the transaction.
p ay of
A clerk in the emthe plaintiff was put into the
box tirl
40 proved that a letter bad been written to the us-
fendant, but he could not say whether or not it bad ever
been sent.
Mr. Serjeant TADDY, in continustion, said that be felt
it a duty incumbent upon him to explain to the Jury, in
what light they ought to receive this last bit of evidence.
lie (the Learned Serjeant) did not know whether any of
the gentlemen in the jury box had been present at the laic
siege of Algiers; but at all events whether they bad or
not,
they had doubtless read in the newspapers of the
llseb General's successful ruse de guerre. When he
had dettrminsd upon what particular side of the city
enier
edsahbrid commence the attack, he sent a con-
e number of men to the side directly opposite,
and they there pretended to take active measures
against the enemy—now he (Mr. Sergeant Teddy) had
• once hail the honour of serving his King and country as a
volunteer—(A
Jury, that htugh)—and could, therefore, inform the
this ruse was what was technically termed in
the art of veer a demonstration. This was precisely the
light in which they ought to regard the evidence in quer.
Ilan, and although it was successful in the instance he bed
cited, he was sure when the Jury reflected that the
plaintiff in this action wee 'solicitor and knew well what
tees to be done in all such cases, it would not be so in
the prevent.
The Laub Cniir L T
sT
Jury retired, andhtrulut;:tzurnbeadvinwgithiluthnneiredverUdPietttet
he time we went to press,