The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-10 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE'.

COURT OF CHANCERY', DEC. 9-
The indisposition of the. Lonn CUANCELLOIL caused him
to sit to-day and yesterday in his private room. ' •

EXPARTE SAUMAREZ, IN THE MATTER OF SAIJ.MAREZ,A

LUNATIC.

This was an application filnu the wife, for the Court to order
that some provision should be made for her out of the estate;
and the petition also required some changes in the management

•
of the person and estate Odle lunatic. •
Counsel were heard at great length in the course of yesterday

1.1(1 to-day.

The Loan CHANCELLOR inclined to the opinion that the pe•
ion must be dismissed. The lady was the same who had not

long ago been put upon her trial at York for bigamy. Mr. Jus.
Lice Bayley. who presided, was then of opinion, that the first
marriage, which Was in Ireland, having been celebrated without
a priest or clergyman, was not legal. But he had since read over

the affidavits in this cause, and found reason to alter his opi.
nice ; and he himself (the Lord Chancellor) coincided very
much in that Sentiment, Ile would not,' however, pronounce

upon that subject. He would dismiss the petition, because
thfs lady had no right to traverse the inquisition; and as to any
change required in the management of the person or estate, she
had only the same right of interference which any 'One else had
who might think thein improperly dealt with.

TIM OPERA 11011t1E.-"W AT It Its V ellE4M9Fita.
'.{'!ifs was a ease whiett Involved the interest and property of
the Opera House. The defendant was brought before the
Court in the three-fold capacity of judgment creditor, with pp*.
session by execution, trustee for the management and sale; and
purchaser bye contract which the court set aside for insuf-
ficient value?
It appeared, that on the sale ordered by the Cwt. in 1813, in
the case of " Waters v. Taylor," Waters Occame.the purchaser;
anti from that time the house of Birch and Chambers had ad-
vanced money until the sum due to them amounted to 50,0801.,
and this circumstance, of course, gave them considerable do-
minion over the property in all the subsequent transactions con-
nected
with that ill-fated estate.
The present motion sought to drive Mr. Chambers to the elec-
tion Of one out of the three characters above-mentioned, in which
lie at present holds ; and also the appointment of a: receiver on
behalf of the general creditors.
The Loan CIIA NCE t.t.ort heard the arguMent at consider-
able length, but from indisposition was induced to postpone it
till the next seal. His Lordship again took occasion to observe
upon the impolicy of the parties bringing their th,?atre into the
Court. It was in the time of. Lord Thurlow that the Royal
Circus was first brought hither. Lord Thutlow lost no more
than about Live days on that subject. Since then all the
theatres had been before the Court, and this case of the Opera-
house alone had occupied several year's of his I.4ordsliip's time.
—lt was a little hard upon the poor Court of Chancery, which
was-made answerable to so many complaints of grievance and
delay. In the common law courts, no sooner did a theatre case
appear, and the counsel shew their faces, than they were
driven by the Judges out of Court, and compelled to go to
arbitration. They got rid of the business and went on, while
the Court of Chancery could do no such thing, and was con.
elled to hear the parties out. For his own pert, he had no
knowledge which enabled him to take the moutgentent of
the concerns of a theatre upon him. How could he deter.-
mine whether a singer, Who was to have so many thousands
a-year deserved it or not ? lie recollected very well that
Mr. L'owten, who was not idle, in business, being asked whit' he
did not go on in Court, answered the Chancellor,, that indeed he
could not, for on the subjects referred to the Master concerning
the theatre when he attended the office, other people would
appear, and sometimes a man would converse with the Master
in Italian for half an hour, Mr. Lowten not understanding one
word of what was said.. At the conclusion the Master would
ask him what he had to say to it ? Mr: Lowten would answer,
that he could have nothing to say, unless .he knew what had
been Najd ; upon which the Master would set about explaining,
anti by the time that was half done, the.period of attendance
would arrive. These and other inconveniences rendered it im-
passible ever to conduct the business of a theatre, with advan-
tage to the parties, by means of this Court.

Equity after the injunction which he had formerly obtained
had been dissolved, and the action tried in a court of law ; and
he therefore moved that the amended bill should be removed
from the file.
Tht-VIcE-CtrAficELLon said that there was no rule which
prevented the plaintiff' from filing an amended bill in this case,
and he dismissed the motion with costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Dim. 0.
BULL V. DE *R.

This action was brought to recoverthe sum of W. 15s. which
it was alleged the
.plaintiffpaid for a horse bought for the de-
fendant, at his desire.
It appeared that the plaintiff and defendant were corn-chand-
lers at Somers-town, where the latter had recently commenced
business. Mr. Bulrwas-acquainted with a Major Dowbiggin,
who had a pony to sell, which Mr. Dear authorised him to pur-
chase. The horse was accordingly sent to Mr. Dear, with a
paper,. warranting him as steady in harness, but not as sound;
on which Mr. Dear refused to receive him without a warranty
of soundness. The horse, however, remained that night at the
defendant's, and the next morning was offered to the plaintiff,
who refused to receive him..
,Major Dowbiggin stated, that the 15/. 15s. had been allowed
to him, in account, by Mr. Bull ; but admitted that he only
gave 14/. for the horse, with a gig and harness. As soon as he
heard the objection of Mr. Dear, he wrote a warranty of sound-
ness, but it appeared this had never been tendered to the de-
fendant. There was no direct evidence whether Mr. Dear,
when he authorised Mr. Bull to purchase the horse, directed
himto obtain a
.warranty of soundness.
The LonD.Cuizr JUSTICE held that if the defendant au-
thorized the plaintiff' to purchase the horse only on condition
that he should obtain a warranty of soundness, the action could
not be supported, because no such warranty was ever tendertxl;
and whether the condition was expreased'or not, he left, as a
question of fact, to the jury, on which their verdict would
depend.
The Jury almost immediately found- a verdict for the de-
fendant.