LORD ROSEBERY SUED.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 101, 30 April 1909, Page 4

LORD ROSEBERY SUED.

« ACTION FOE ALLEGED SLANDER. HIS LORDSHIP'S DEFENCE. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, 19th March. Widespread interest was taken in the action raised in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, on Saturday, before Lord Salvesen, in the Drysdale-Rosebery slander case. Trje pursuer, or plaintiff, is Mr. Andrew Learmont Drysdale, of Dalmeny, and the defender, Lord Rosebery. Damages to the extent of £10,000 are claimed against his»Lordship as compensation for alleged statements made *and actions performed, or authorised to be made and performed, by the de fender. In his statement of claim Mr. Drysdale says that he has acted as factor and commissioner on Lord Rosebery's estates in the counties of Edinburgh and Linlithgow since August, 1890 c His salary as factor was at first £?50 a year, and latterly £400. Tho annual return of the estates under his control had been about £28,000. In addition, he had had the management of the home farm as well as three other farms belonging to Lord llosebery. From the date of his appointment he had regularly and properly discharged the duties of his office. The accounts up to 30th November, 1908, had been entered monthly, and had been approved and passed by Mr. T. S. Eason, Writer to the Signet, on behalf of Lord Rosebery. FORCING A DESK OPEN. Lord Rosebery wrote him on 23rd December, 1903, that he was fully convinced that he (Mr. Drysdale) had done everything with the best motive and intentions. On Saturday, 2nd January, Mr. George Dalziel, Writer to the Signet, called upor> him (Mr. D\ysdale) and handed him a letter, saying, "This will explain the object of my visit." The let ter read thus : — Dalrneny House, Edinburgh, Ist January. Dear Sir, — I desire you to give my agent, Mr. Dalziel, possession of all books, documents and papers, and all the contents of the safe in the estate office, and that on presenting the letter to you. 'Rosebery. Mr. Drysdale gave details of tho search for the taking away of documents and books from the estate offic'i, mentioning that at the request of one of Mr. Dalziel's clerks a man was brought in to force open with a chisel and 'hammer a desk of which the key could not bo found. Mr. Drysdalo pleaded that the statements and acts represented that he had been unfaithful in the discharge of his dudes, and that he had" been guilty of fraud and misconduct in the performance of them, and that he was unfitted to be entrusted witn the custody of Lord Rosebery's papers. He complained that he had been grossly slandered by Lord Rossbery, who had acted maliciously and without probable cause, and for the purpose of gratifying a private grudge in* relation to the affairs of the All British Car Company, :n which Lord Rosebery was interested POINTS OF THE DEFENCE. Lord Rosebery, in his reply to the above allegations, states on the record that the nature of Mr. Drysdale's duties had remained the same since the date of his appointment. In addition to his salary Mr. Drysdale had a free house, a field of the annual >-alue of £45, besides other valuable perquisites. Lord Rosebery denies that the estates were in a starved or impoverished condition at the time of Mr. Drysdale's appointment, or that all proposed expenditure was approved by him (Lord Rosebery) or his agents. Since 1895 he (the defender) had from time to time to complain to Mr. Drysdale of the results of his management of the estates, and of the home farm, in relation to heavy annual losses, and Mr. Drysdalo wns from timp to time warned that the causes of .^om plaint must be removed. As the result of an investigation in 1903, he (Lord Rosebery) again had to express his dissatisfaction with the management, and as a. consequence of the failure of Mr. Drysdale to remedy matters he (Lord Rosebery) authorised his agent to terminate Mr. Drysdale's employment.