PEERAGE ROMANCE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2287, 30 December 1897, Page 30

PEERAGE ROMANCE.

A WELSHMAN MAKES A CLAIM TO THE LOVAT ESTATES.

A curious story was told iv the Court of Session!:, Edinburgh, the other diy, when couasel was heard in »v action by John Fraeer, Lovat Lod^e, 10 Harrington square, London, ng-tinst the Lord Advocate and Lord Lovab, claiming the Liv.\t peerage and estates. , Mr Fraser seeks to h^ve it declared thab'he is heir m*le of Hugh, the fifth Lord Lovab, and, therefore, entitled to the barony and land* of Lovat aud to the title of Lord Lovat. He also desires to have Lord Lovat \nho he saya ia a descendant of the second son. of the sixth Lord Lovat) ordained to account for his intromissions with the estate sinca bis sue-. cf>BMon<therelo-in 1887, or to make payment of £120 000. The gist of the claim is that the claimant as.-erte h'mself to be legitimately descended from Alex»nder Fraser, eldest sen of Thomas Fraser, of B •aufoub, aud thab his Ancestor, Alexander, after X ldeeraukie, fled to Wales, married, and died there io 1776. Lord Lovat, in defence, declares that Alexander F laser died io 1689 unmarried. Mr Macphail, for Lord Lovat, said he took his stand upon L'trd Loval's father's title of possession of the ertta'ei in 1875 ; and if he were.forced to go back to the title of 1875, ho claimed that the prescriptive period of either 20 or 40 years had elapsed, and that, therefore, the purmsr had no status. He quoted authorities io support of this cuntcution. Mr Cooper, for tho pursuer, based his observations on the earlier titles to the peerag?, and in a long argument maintained thab the for.feiture by .the Crown of the estates of 1747' ,wa,s a forfeiture affecting only Simon Fraser, and that Alexander of B^jauForb^ who was the eldest son, was then living, and could hive come forward to cltim the estates. He couteudsd that all his client required to do now was so say that the title, laud, aud barony should be handed over to the person who, as the one in right jof consanguinity, had lbs right to succeed U( d-r the charter of 1539 Oj the first part of the case he submitted that nothing previous to the forfeiture of 1747 altertd the destination of the 1539 charter, and that acts of Parliament passed last century did not take away the right of I htf present claimant at all. Mr C. J. Johnston, tor the Crown, said that all that 1 was done by the Crown in connection with the lauds was done by statutory authority, and' he submitted that the Crown ought not to have been called upon or made a party to the action, and tfeat whatever course his Lordship took against Lord Lovab, the action against the Crown should be dismissed. Mr Asher, D-dan of Faculty, who appeared for Lord Lovat, declared that Mr Fraser had neither a. relevant case nor a tide upon which to sue. Mr J. B. Balfour, Q.C., who represented Mr Fraser, replied to the Dsan's argument on the questions of prescription and reversion, and contended that there was a case for proof. Ab the close of the B*rgument3 his Lordship reserved judgment.

According to the Sydney papers it was the mother of President M'Kioley who died lasb week, and 110b the President's wife. The Dunedin Hospital returns for the past wtelc were: — Admitted 15, dischiuged 16, deaths 2 (Charles Goodali and John Pink), remaining 93. The Public Hall at Balfour, Southland, was destroyed by fire on Thursday, 23rd, and with it a. Christmas tree, with toys, &c. The hall wa3 insured in the National office for about £180.