The Sun.
London, England, 1851-08-04 00:00:00

THE SUN,

HER MAJESTY'S TiIEATRE,
La G-'azza Ladra was repeated on Slturday evenin;?,
and never have we beard this delightful opera more per-
fectly performed. Alboni was in excellent voice, and as
usual produced an immense sensation by her delicious
rendering of "Di piacer." The "Oh ! nume be-
nefico" was splendidly :sung by Alboni, Coletti, and
Lablache ; and the finale to the first act was most
purely an beautifully rendered. The prison scene
was exquisitely given by Alboni and Pippo, and never
have we heard Lablache in finer voice, or seen him .nct
with more gusto than he did on Saturday. His Prefetto
is a thing to be remembered; it is perfect. The theatre
was dentely crowded.

ROYAL ITALIAN OPERA,
COVENT-GARDEN.

After the pretentious ponderoeities of the Prophete
(much be-praised by pedants though they may be), it'
is delightful to listen to the ever fresh and ever delicious
music of Rossini, and therefore do we laud the manage-
ment of this theatre for having on Saturday night given
us La Gazza Ladra, and the audience seemed to be of
our opinion; there was none of that weariness observable
of which too frequently there are unmistakeable signs to-
wards the conclusion of "heavy operas,"and the auditors
remained until the:conclusion. The opera was very strongly
cast. Grisi, of course, was the Ninetta; and although
she seemed in the early pert of the evening suffering
trom slight indisposition, and scarcely produced as much
effect as usual in "Di pincer;" yet she rallied as the
opera proceeded, and in the trial scene, and indeed
throughout the second act, was superb. La Diva, in the
concluding scenes was quite herself again. Madlle.
Angri was the Pippo, and most effectively supported
Grisi in the great prison scene. Tamburini resumed
his old character of Fernando, and Mario ap-
peared as Gianetto, instead of Ciaffei, who had been
announced. The audience were delighted to see Mario
once more on the stage, and greeted him enthusias-
tically, and albeit be has scarcely yet recovered from
his hoarseness, he sang the music exqusitely; nothing
could exceed the taste and delicacy with which he ren-
dered his aria d'intrata in the first act. Ronconi ap-
peared for the first time as the Podesta, and gave a
lively, amusing, bustling, grimacing, Figaro-like version
of the part. Ronconi, however, does not yet possess the
secret of repose. The overture was superbly performed
by the orchestra, under the direction of Costa, and was,
as a matter of course, encored.

IMPORTANT CASE IN THE SCOTTISH
COURTS.-THE VELASQUEZ PORTRAIT.

COURT OF SESSION, EDINBURGH, FIRST

DIVISION.
SNARE V. THE EARL OF FIFE'S TRUSTS.

This case, which was a claim for damages at the
instance of Mr. Snare against the trustees of the
Earl of Fife, relative to the celebrated portrait of
Charles 1., by Velasquez, came on for trial before
Lord Cowan and a jury on Saturday, and was con-
tinued on Monday last.
In the summons it is stated, on behalf of Mr.
Snare, who is a bookseller in Reading, that he pur-
chased the picture at the sale of Mr. Benjamin
Kent, Radley Hall, near Oxford, in October, 1845 ;
that he had exhibited it publicly in Reading and
London, and that he had commenced exhibiting
it publicly in Edinburgh, on the 15th of
January, 1849, and continued the exhibition
till the 31st of that month. At that pe-
riod a petition was presented to the sheriff
substitute, at the instance of the trustees of the late
Earl of Fife, praying his Lordship to grant a war-
rant to the clerk of the court to take possession of
the picture, and retain the same until the right of
property thereto was determined, on the ground, as
they alleged, that it had been stolen or surreptitiously
abstracted. On the same day on which the petition
was presented, the sheriff substitute ex parte,
without affording the pursuers an opportunity of
being heard, pronounced a deliverance, ordering the
petition and deliverance to be served on the pursuer,
and in the meantime granting warrant to the clerk of
court to take possession of the picture, according to
the prayer of the petition. The sheriff clerk ac-
cordingly took possession of the picture. Imme-
diately thereafter the pursuer lodged a minute to
the sheriff, craving him to appoint a hearing of parties,
that the pursuer might have an opportunity of
satisfying him that no grounds existed for so un-
warrantable a step, and also lodged answers to the
petition. The pursuer also caused a protest to be
served on the trustees. On the 26th February the
sheriff, after hearing parties, recalled the interlo-
cutor of his substitute, and appointed the picture to
be restored to the pursuer. The trustees afterwards
presented a petition to the sheriff, praying him to
grant them leave to advocate his judgment; but this
was refused, and he issued another interlocutor on the
3d of March, appointing the picture to be restored.
After this the trustees presented a note of suspension
and interdict to the Lord Ordinary on the bills late on
the evening of the 2d of March, 1849, in which, "con-
cealing the important fact that they had applied to
the sheriff for leave to advocate his judgment of the
26th February last, and that such leave had been re-
fused, they falsely asserted that the sheriff had granted
possession ad interim, pending the advocation." The
Lord Ordinary, without hearing the pursuer, granted
interdict to a limited extent ; but afterwards, when
parties were heard, he recalled the interdict. The trus-
tees next raised a summons of multiplepoinding in the
name of the sheriff clerk, which was executed against
the pursuer. These proceedings being persevered in,
and the pursuer still deprived of the possession and use
of his lawful property, his agent addressed a letter to
the agents for the trustees on the 2nd March, warn-
ing them that if the pursuer's property was to be
longer withheld from him, on any pretext or denial
whatever, he would hold them responsible for the full
value of the picture, as the same should be fixed by
him. Notwithstanding this warning, however, the
trustees still continued their attempts to prevent the
pursuer from obtaining possession of the picture till
;he 17th of March, when it was restored to him. In
these circumstances, the pursuer claimed damages for
the loss he had sustained by those unwarrantable,
unjustifiable, and illegal proceedings.
The defenders, after stating some preliminary de-
fences, allege that they had every reason to believe
that the picture was the property of James Earl of
Fife, and in his possession at the time of his death;
that it passed, along with the other effects of the trust
estate, into their possession as trustees under
the trust disposition and deed of settlement of
James Earl of Fife, and was, without their
knowledge or consent, abstracted or stolen. The
picture may have been exhibited in London,
but their attention was only attracted to the matter
by its exhibition in Edinburgh, and the' posi-
tive declaration that the picture had belonged to the
collection of James Earl of Fife, and consequently
belonged to them, as they had never parted with it,
or any other pictures belonging to the estate. The pic-
ture appears in a catalogue prepared and printed for
the Earl of Fife himself in the year 1807, as being at
Fife-house. After the Earl's death Fife-house in
Whitehall, with everything therein contained,
including the picture in question, was taken
possession of by the defenders. Fife-house
was thereafter sold by them in the year
1812. Immediately before the sale orders were given
by them to pack up the picture in question, along
with the other pictures, plate, and wines, and trans-
mit them to Duff-house, in Banffshire, and other
houses in Scotland belonging to, though not inhabited
by, the defenders. It must have been about this time
that the theft of the picture was effected, for although
it can be proved that the picture was in Fife-house, at
and subsequent to the late Earl's death, no trace can
be obtained of its having been ever seen in this coun-
try since. The defenders deny that on the proceed-
ings taken there can be any claim of damages
founded, and also that the pursuer had suffered severe
pecuniary loss. It was understood that the exhibition
of the picture did not pay ; and the notoriety which
it subsequently obtained from the defenders' proceed-
ings caused a large increase of visitors after the exhi-
bition was re-opened, which more than compensated
the pursuer for the temporary inconvenience to which
he bad been put. The sole object of the defenders'
proceedings was the safe custody of the picture, until
the question of right should be determined.
The case went to trial on the following issues :
" 1. Whether, on or about the 31st day of January,
1849, the defendants wrongfully applied for and ob-
tained from the sheriff-substitute of the county
of Edinburgh the warrant set forth in a
schedule annexed, and wrongfully caused the same to
be executed, and the picture therein referred to to be
seized and removed from the custody or possession of
the pursuer, in virtue or under co lour of the said
warrant, to the loss, injury, and damage of the
pursuer ?
"2. Whether the defenders wrongfully detained
and withheld the said picture, or caused the same to
be detained and withheld from the pursuer, from, an,
or about the said 31st of January, 1849, till on or
about the 17th day of March following, to the lose,
injury, and damage of the pursuer ?"
Damages were laid at 5,0001.
On Saturday various witnesses were examined, and
counsel having been heard,
Lord Cowan charged the jury at considerable
length, after which they retired, and returned into
court with a verdict for the pursuer on both issues,
awarding damages to the amount of 1,0001., irrespec-
tive of solatium, which they did not take into consi-
deration.
The Solicitor- General took exception to a part of
the judge's charge, to the effect that the jury, in as-
sessing the damages, if they were of opinion that the
warrant was wrongously obtained, were entitled to
take into consideration the injury that the pursuer's
business had sustained, provided it had been proved
to their satisfaction that such injury flowed from
these proceedings
Counsel for the pursuer, John Inglis, Esq., and
George Young, E,q. ; Mr. James ',emoted, agent.
Counsel for the defenders, the Solicitor- General
and E. D. Sandford, Esq. , Messrs. Inglis and Burn,
agents.