PEERAGE ROMANCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10629, 18 December 1897, Page 2 (Supplement)

PEERAGE ROMANCE.

WELSHMAN MARKS A CLAIM TO

THE LOVAT ESTATES. A conious story was told in the Court of Session, Edinburgh, the other day, whon counsel was heard in an action by John Fraßor, Lovab Lodge, 10, Harrington Square, London, against the Lord Advocate and Lord Lovat, claiming the Lovab peerage and estates. Mr. Fraser seeks to have ib declared that ho is heir male of Hugh, the fifth Lord Lovat, and, therofore, entitled to the barony and lands of Lovat and to the title of Lord Lovab. He also desires to have Lord Lovat (who he says is a descendant of the second Son of the sixth Lord Lovat) ordained to account for his intromissions with the estate since his succession thereto in 1887, or to make payment of £120,000. The gist of the claim is that claimant asserts himself to be legitimately descended from Alexander Fraser, eldest Bon of Thomas Fraser, of Beaufort, and that his ancestor, Alexander, after Killiecrankie, fled to Wales, married and died there in 1776. Lord Lovat, in defence, declares that Alexander Fraser died in 1689 unmarried. Mr. Macphail, for Lord Lovat, said he took his stand upon Lord Lovat's father's title of possession Of the estates in 1875; and if he were forced to go back to the title of 1875, ho claimed that the prescriptive period of cither 20 or 40 years had elapsed, and that, therefore, the pursuer had no status. Ho quoted authorities in support of this contention. Mr. Cooper, for the pursuer, based his observations on the earlier titles to the peerage, and in a long argument maintained that the forfeiture by the Crown,of the estates in 1747 was a forfeiture affecting . only Simon Fraser, and that. Alexander of Beauforb, .who was the eldest son, was then living,. and could have come forward to claim the estates. He contended that all his, client required to do now was to , say- that the title, land, and, barony should be handed over to the person who, as the one in right of consanguinity, had the tight to succeed under the chartor of 1539, On the first part of the case lie submitted that nothing previous to the forfeiture of 1747 altered the destination of the 1539 charter, and ' that Acts ot Parliament passed lash century did not take away the right of the present | ; claimant.at all. i Mr. 0. J. Johnston, for I the Crown, said that all that was done by the Crown connection with the lands was I done by statutory authority, and he sub- . fitted that the Crown'oughb nob to have , been called upon or made a party to the action, mid thab whatever course his lord' , ship took flgainib'Lord Lovab, the action , against the Crown Should! be 'dismissed.' ' Mr. Asher, Dean of Faculty, who appeared for Lord Lovat,' declared : bhab Mr, Fraser > had neither & relevant Case nor a, title upon which to sue. Mr. J. B. Balfour,Q;o., who 'represented? Mr. y Fraser, ■ repliedtto--the l Dean's argument on the questions of pre'*', emption and reversion, and contended that there was a case for proof. • At the close of the arguments His Lordship reserved judgment, < ' " • '