196 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
to such an extent as will require their complete renewal. 
The flames ascended to the roof, partly composed of glass, 
and a considerable portion of it fell with a loud crash. 
“ Fortunately, a thick stone wall intervened between the 
museum and the lecture-room, or this part of the building 
must have shared the same fate. In the hasty removal, 
however, of the valuable contents of the museum, they, of 
course, sustained some damage. The property, we under¬ 
stand, is ensured in the Sun Fire Office. It is satisfactory to 
add that the educational course at the college will suffer no 
interruption from the unfortunate occurrence, as Professor 
Dick^s lectures will be delivered in Clyde Street Hall. 
Little alteration will result to the other arrangements con¬ 
nected with the institution .”—Extracted chiefly from the 
South British Agriculturist. 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
NISI PRIUS COURT.— Feb. 3rd. 
Before the Lord Chief Justice and a Special Jury. 
Quartermaine v. Morris. 
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. I). D. Keane, were for the plaintiff; 
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Barnard, for the defendant. 
This case was partly heard yesterday, and occupied a great portion of 
to-day. It was an action by Mr. Quartermaine, the well-known horse- 
dealer of Piccadilly, against Colonel Morris, C.B., Assistant-Inspector of 
Volunteers, for breach of warranty of a horse sold by the defendant to 
the plaintiff last April. 
From the opening of the plaintiff’s counsel, and the evidence adduced 
on his behalf, it appeared that the horse was a showy animal, and attracted 
the plaintiff’s attention on more than one occasion, when it was ridden 
or driven bv Colonel Morris’s groom. Having ascertained that it was 
for sale, Mr. Quartermaine and his son called on the defendant, who told 
him that the horse had been in his possession about two years, and came 
from Yorkshire. He asked 250/. for him, a price which the plaintiff 
thought not too high, provided the animal were sound. But Mr. 
Quartermaine desired further opportunities of examining the horse, and 
for that purpose asked whether he might go to the mews where the horse 
was kept. Colonel Mori is objected to this, for he said there were some 
“coping fellows” about the place, and that if the plaintiff did not buy the 
horse it Avould get a bad name with these persons. Colonel Morris also 
refused, for the same reason, to let the horse go down to the plaintiff’s 
stables in Piccadilly. Nothing further took place at the interview of the 
31st of March, but on the 4th of April the defendant called at Mr. 
Quartermaine’s stables, and said the plaintiff might see the horse that 
afternoon at Cadogan Place. There, accordingly, at a few yards from 
Colonel Morris’s house, in Cadogan Place, the groom put the horse into 
a canter in the presence of the defendant and plaintiff, and of Mr. 
