Peerage Romance.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 8928, 31 December 1897, Page 3

Peerage Romance.

A WELSHMAN MAKES A O/’AIM TO THE LOVAT ESTATES.

A curious story was told in the Court of Sessions, Edinburgh, the other day, when counsel was heard in an action by John Fraser* Lor at Lodge, 10 Harrington square, Loudon, against the Lord Advocate and Lord Lovat, claiming the Lorat peerage and estates. Mr Fraser seeks to have it declared that he is heir male of Hugh, the fifth Lord Lovat, and, therefore, entitled to the barony and lands of Lovat and to the title oi Ijovd Lovat. He also desires to have Lord Lovat (who he says is a descendant of the socoi.d son of the sixth Lord Lovat) ordained to account for his intromissions with the estate since his succession thereto in 1887, or tc make payment of £120,0U0. The gist of the claim is that the claiment assert s himself to be legitimately de scended from Alexander Fraser, eldest son of Thomas Fraser, of Beaufort and that his ancestor, Alexander, after Killiecrai k e, flod to Wales, married, aud died there 1778. T.nrd Trfwsf i«

AMU 41V4 VUVI V 111 U| AJvT«l| IS defence, declares that Alexander Fraser died in 1689 unmarried. Mr Macpbail, for Lord Lovat, said ke 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 he claimed that the prescriptive period of either 20 or 40 years had escaped, and that, therefore, the pursuer had no status. He 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 Grown of the estates ef 1747 was a forfeiture affecting only Simon Fraser, and that Alexander of Beaufort, who was the the eldest, eon, was then living, and could have come forward and 1 olaim< d the ei tales ,He contended that ' all his client required to do now was to say that the title, land, and barony , should be handed ever to the person , who, as the one in right ef eoasaa- ' guiniry, had the right to succeed under p the charter ef 1539. On the first part < of the case he submitted that nothing prev’ou* to the forfeiture ef 1747

altered the destination of the 1689 charter, and that acts •{ Parliament passed last century did not take away the right of the present claimant at all Mr C. J. Johnston, lor the Crown, said that all that was done by statutory authority, and he submitted that the Crown ought not to have been called upon or made a party on the action, and that whaeever course his Lordship took against Lovat. the action against the Grown should be dismissed. Mr Asher, Dean of Faculty, who appeared for Lord Lovat, declared that Mr Fraser had neither a relevant case nor a title upon which to sue. Mr J. B. Balfour, Q. 0., who represented Mr Fraser replied to the Dean’s argument on the questions of prescription and reversion, and contended that there was a case for proof. At the close ot the arguments his Lordship reserved judgement.